Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Military grade weapons should be prohibited.
  • Subject: Military grade weapons should be prohibited.
Subject: Military grade weapons should be prohibited.

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten

You guys need to understand this, if someone who wants to hurt people can't get a gun, he will use another weapon and still hurt people.

removing gun rights is not fair to the hundreds of thousands of legal, responsible gun owners.

  • 12.17.2012 7:08 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I agree, gun range should only have them so if you really like ARs then go there.

  • 12.17.2012 7:10 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: spartain ken 15
You guys need to understand this, if someone who wants to hurt people can't get a gun, he will use another weapon and still hurt people.
But the point is that with another weapon it will be harder to murder as many people at once as with a firearm.

removing gun rights is not fair to the hundreds of thousands of legal, responsible gun owners. -blam!- deal with it. Your hobbies are not as important as human lives.

  • 12.17.2012 7:11 AM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: spartain ken 15
You guys need to understand this, if someone who wants to hurt people can't get a gun, he will use another weapon and still hurt people.
But the point is that with another weapon it will be harder to murder as many people at once as with a firearm.

removing gun rights is not fair to the hundreds of thousands of legal, responsible gun owners. -blam!- deal with it. Your hobbies are not as important as human lives.


No, but it is one of my rights as a U.S citizen to own a firearm.

Lets say someone uses a computer to hack a train switch or something and caused a train to de-rail which killed a lot of people.

Should we make it illegal for civilians to own a computer?

  • 12.17.2012 7:13 AM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.


Posted by: spartain ken 15
You guys need to understand this, if someone who wants to hurt people can't get a gun, he will use another weapon and still hurt people.
>you can kill someone faster with a gun
>it's easier to kill someone with a gun
>you can't run away from a gun
>it's easier to disarm someone who has a knife / other weapon.
>you can kill more people in a shorter space of time with a gun than another weapon.

it's far better a killer has a knife than a gun.

  • 12.17.2012 7:14 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: spartain ken 15
You guys need to understand this, if someone who wants to hurt people can't get a gun, he will use another weapon and still hurt people.
But the point is that with another weapon it will be harder to murder as many people at once as with a firearm.

removing gun rights is not fair to the hundreds of thousands of legal, responsible gun owners. -blam!- deal with it. Your hobbies are not as important as human lives.


No, but it is one of my rights as a U.S citizen to own a firearm.

Lets say someone uses a computer to hack a train switch or something and caused a train to de-rail which killed a lot of people.

Should we make it illegal for civilians to own a computer?
Can anyone pick up a computer and hack a train organisation network? No.

Can anyone pick up a gun and shoot someone else? Yes.

And you Americans need to get over this fetish you have for freedom over there. It's getting in the way of a lot of things.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 7:15 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 7:15 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Elder Mythic Member

There is just something magical about leaning your head back, letting your eyes roll into the back of your head, and taking a piss while floating in the swimming pool.


Posted by: Double A
Why do we, civilians, need an Assault Rifle? We can't use that for hunting. Rifles and pistols are fine in my opinion. Rifles are for hunting, and pistols are for protection.
But an AR? That's used for killing people in the military, long range, and packs a lot of bullets that an wipe multiple targets with a press of the finger. It's not needed by civilians. Keep it in the military.

Don't think I'm implying the gun is a killing machine, it's whoever is using it. Don't imply I'm talking about military men either. I'm talking about civilians. ARs have that name for a reason.

TL;DR
Rifles: Yay
Pistols: Yay
Assault Rifles: Nay



Sorry OP but I disagree. A gun is a gun.

You will have to kill me before you rip my Colt LE901-16 out of my hands!

http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtRifles/ColtLE90116S.aspx

  • 12.17.2012 7:15 AM PDT

Name's Pixel.
There's a 87.7% chance that I'm better than you.
At everything.
Also.
Please message me if you have any objections.
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)


Posted by: spartain ken 15

Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: spartain ken 15
You guys need to understand this, if someone who wants to hurt people can't get a gun, he will use another weapon and still hurt people.
But the point is that with another weapon it will be harder to murder as many people at once as with a firearm.

removing gun rights is not fair to the hundreds of thousands of legal, responsible gun owners. -blam!- deal with it. Your hobbies are not as important as human lives.


No, but it is one of my rights as a U.S citizen to own a firearm.

Lets say someone uses a computer to hack a train switch or something and caused a train to de-rail which killed a lot of people.

Should we make it illegal for civilians to own a computer?

That's never happened and is completely irrelevant.

And I never said that all of our gun rights should be taken away, I disagree with the fact that we can easily buy a weapon that the military uses.

  • 12.17.2012 7:15 AM PDT

Name's Pixel.
There's a 87.7% chance that I'm better than you.
At everything.
Also.
Please message me if you have any objections.
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)


Posted by: cromy1

Posted by: Double A
Why do we, civilians, need an Assault Rifle? We can't use that for hunting. Rifles and pistols are fine in my opinion. Rifles are for hunting, and pistols are for protection.
But an AR? That's used for killing people in the military, long range, and packs a lot of bullets that an wipe multiple targets with a press of the finger. It's not needed by civilians. Keep it in the military.

Don't think I'm implying the gun is a killing machine, it's whoever is using it. Don't imply I'm talking about military men either. I'm talking about civilians. ARs have that name for a reason.

TL;DR
Rifles: Yay
Pistols: Yay
Assault Rifles: Nay



Sorry OP but I disagree. A gun is a gun.

You will have to kill me before you rip my Colt LE901-16 out of my hands!

http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtRifles/ColtLE90116S.aspx

Don't get me wrong, I love a sexy gun like that, but I'm not in charge of your rights, and I have no right to take your gun, I'm just stating my opinion on our right to military weapons.

  • 12.17.2012 7:17 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

“Strange,” mused the Director, as they turned away, “strange to think that even in Our Ford’s day most games were played without more apparatus than a ball or two and a few sticks and perhaps a bit of netting. imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption.”

The Black Chapter!

20 children were shot at close range with an assault rifle, and people are arguing that measures that could help prevent another 20 children being shot at close range with an assault rifle shouldn't be pursued.

  • 12.17.2012 7:17 AM PDT

Wizzy


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: spartain ken 15
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: spartain ken 15
You guys need to understand this, if someone who wants to hurt people can't get a gun, he will use another weapon and still hurt people.
But the point is that with another weapon it will be harder to murder as many people at once as with a firearm.

removing gun rights is not fair to the hundreds of thousands of legal, responsible gun owners. -blam!- deal with it. Your hobbies are not as important as human lives.


No, but it is one of my rights as a U.S citizen to own a firearm.

Lets say someone uses a computer to hack a train switch or something and caused a train to de-rail which killed a lot of people.

Should we make it illegal for civilians to own a computer?
Can anyone pick up a computer and hack a train organisation network? No.

Can anyone pick up a gun and shoot someone else? Yes.

And you Americans need to get over this fetish you have for freedom over there. It's getting in the way of a lot of things.


If I could just add to this

Guns were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL THINGS. Computers were not. Neither were cars or frying pans.

A gun is defined as a projectile weapon.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 7:21 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 7:17 AM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.


Posted by: spartain ken 15
No, but it is one of my rights as a U.S citizen to own a firearm.
screw your constitution and do something right for a change.

  • 12.17.2012 7:18 AM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: spartain ken 15
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: spartain ken 15
You guys need to understand this, if someone who wants to hurt people can't get a gun, he will use another weapon and still hurt people.
But the point is that with another weapon it will be harder to murder as many people at once as with a firearm.

removing gun rights is not fair to the hundreds of thousands of legal, responsible gun owners. -blam!- deal with it. Your hobbies are not as important as human lives.


No, but it is one of my rights as a U.S citizen to own a firearm.

Lets say someone uses a computer to hack a train switch or something and caused a train to de-rail which killed a lot of people.

Should we make it illegal for civilians to own a computer?
Can anyone pick up a computer and hack a train organisation network? No.

Can anyone pick up a gun and shoot someone else? Yes.

And you Americans need to get over this fetish you have for freedom over there. It's getting in the way of a lot of things.


You are completely right, not everyone could or would want to hack something JUST LIKE how not everyone could or would want to shoot anyone.

Do you see everyone who buys a gun killing people in a massacre? absolutely not

You use the same argument against me for computers which contradicts what you say about guns.

  • 12.17.2012 7:20 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Garshne
Knives are far less deadly than firearms in the hands of an average person.
*ahem*
So that makes one knife massacre and one attempted massacre.
I found that without really searching very hard; I'm sure there are more.
Posted by: Garshne
As opposed to how many gun massacres?
There are other factors at work than just weapons; the two largest (in relation to these specific types of spree killings) being America's poor treatment of mental illnesses, and the other being overzealous media coverage. The people that do this are usually suicidal and consumed with feelings of isolation and worthlessness. They could kill themselves and be forgotten as nobodies, or they could shoot up a school before offing themselves and get the undivided attention of the entire nation, as well as their names added to the history books. We should stop giving them attention and infamy; that's what they want.

  • 12.17.2012 7:21 AM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten


Posted by: Telec
20 children were shot at close range with an assault rifle, and people are arguing that measures that could help prevent another 20 children being shot at close range with an assault rifle shouldn't be pursued.


The gun is not the problem, it is the person holding it that was the problem.

It is nearly impossible to prevent these disasters from happening and if someone wanted to hurt people, they will do it regardless if they have a gun or not. They will find other weapons to use.

Also the children were NOT shot with assault rifles.

  • 12.17.2012 7:22 AM PDT

Wizzy


Posted by: spartain ken 15


You are completely right, not everyone could or would want to hack something JUST LIKE how not everyone could or would want to shoot anyone.

Do you see everyone who buys a gun killing people in a massacre? absolutely not

You use the same argument against me for computers which contradicts what you say about guns.


It would be much easier for someone to go on a massacre with a gun than by hacking something or other on a computer. I'm not saying those people will go on a massacre. I'm just saying if one of them felt like it for whatever reason.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 7:24 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 7:23 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Telec
20 children were shot at close range with an assault rifle, and people are arguing that measures that could help prevent another 20 children being shot at close range with an assault rifle shouldn't be pursued.
No children were killed by an "assault rifle."

If you're going to debate gun control, please at least learn to use the proper terminology. Assault rifles are a very specific class of weapon, one which is heavily regulated and not applicable in this situation.

  • 12.17.2012 7:23 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Food for thought.

Good summary of my feelings:The Gun Is Civilization

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single -blam!- guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Counterpoint to any "banning guns will reduce crime" argument:This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world's myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.

  • 12.17.2012 7:24 AM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten


Posted by: Wizzy Piggy

Posted by: spartain ken 15


You are completely right, not everyone could or would want to hack something JUST LIKE how not everyone could or would want to shoot anyone.

Do you see everyone who buys a gun killing people in a massacre? absolutely not

You use the same argument against me for computers which contradicts what you say about guns.


It would be much easier for someone to go on a massacre with a gun than by hacking something or other on a computer.


The point is not how easy it is but the intent.

People can use a lot of methods to hurt other people, if you take one option away, they have many other options to use.

Taking guns away/having more strict gun rights will only hurt the responsible gun owners as opposed to the people who want to hurt people badly enough.

  • 12.17.2012 7:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: spartain ken 15
Gun enthusiasts and collectors


are psycopaths.

  • 12.17.2012 7:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

It's not that I'm crazy... It's just that, you're not as far out there as I am.

The civilian "assault rifle" is a nasty word to describe an ergonomic and efficient centerfire rifle chambered in a standard (and practically universal caliber).

The def of an assault rifle is a rifle with full auto capabilities (or burst for you rifle -blam!-s) and chambered in a small/intermediate cartridge.

Not the definition of my cute little AR-15


But I'll entertain the military style argument.

Citizens should be armed as well, if not better than, the forces that might try to attack them. Which is why I do not support an assault weapons ban. One day the police and military wont show up to save the day. Then what?


Also, all of these killings that have been going on could have just as many kills with just about any other tool of choice...

  • 12.17.2012 7:26 AM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten


Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Gun enthusiasts and collectors


are psycopaths.


No they are not

There are hundreds of thousands of people who own guns (legally), Probably less than 1% commits a violent crime with them.

  • 12.17.2012 7:27 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: spartain ken 15
You guys need to understand this, if someone who wants to hurt people can't get a gun, he will use another weapon and still hurt people.


But not as many, what a stupid argument.

Your logic basically says: "Hey guy we got all these crazies living in out country, we can't take away every single one of their methods to murder people so we may as well give them the most deadly option!."

  • 12.17.2012 7:28 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: spartain ken 15
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: spartain ken 15
You guys need to understand this, if someone who wants to hurt people can't get a gun, he will use another weapon and still hurt people.
But the point is that with another weapon it will be harder to murder as many people at once as with a firearm.

removing gun rights is not fair to the hundreds of thousands of legal, responsible gun owners. -blam!- deal with it. Your hobbies are not as important as human lives.


No, but it is one of my rights as a U.S citizen to own a firearm.

Lets say someone uses a computer to hack a train switch or something and caused a train to de-rail which killed a lot of people.

Should we make it illegal for civilians to own a computer?
Can anyone pick up a computer and hack a train organisation network? No.

Can anyone pick up a gun and shoot someone else? Yes.

And you Americans need to get over this fetish you have for freedom over there. It's getting in the way of a lot of things.


You are completely right, not everyone could or would want to hack something JUST LIKE how not everyone could or would want to shoot anyone.

Do you see everyone who buys a gun killing people in a massacre? absolutely not

You use the same argument against me for computers which contradicts what you say about guns.
My argument was not 'everyone who owns a computer =/= they are all hackers'. My argument was that as a tool for use in achieving that intended goal (killing people), it is much harder to use a computer to accomplish that goal as it is to use a firearm to accomplish that goal.

It is much harder to use a computer to kill twenty people than it is to use a gun to kill twenty people.

ONE - Hacking takes years of learning how to program, understand language, etc. let alone learning how to hack into extremely secure government systems. If it was so easy, it would have already happened.

- Killing someone with a rifle simply involves pointing the barrel end of the gun at your intended target then pulling the trigger. Fire enough times and you will eventually hit your target.

TWO - Hacking is a very noticeable thing to do. If you try to hack into a government system, they will know what you are doing and can trace that command. Unless you have more training than a government IT security officer, you will be found.

- The disposition of whether or not someone wants to go out and murder twenty-two school children can not simply be traced and prosecuted by the time someone does it, because by the time you know someone wants to start a massacre they're probably already in the middle of doing it. Did anyone suspect Ronald McDonald (the shooter from the Cinema Massacre earlier this year) was going to start shooting people?

  • 12.17.2012 7:29 AM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten


Posted by: CruddiestBlock1
Also, all of these killings that have been going on could have just as many kills with just about any other tool of choice...


People fail to understand it is not the weapon at fault, it was the wielder.

If someone wanted to hurt someone, they will just use a different weapon or just get the weapon illegally.

  • 12.17.2012 7:30 AM PDT