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


Posted by: Mastergee

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!."


Does it matter how many people they hurt or kill? They still did it regardless of what weapons they could get.

THAT IS THE POINT!!!

If you take away weapons/limit freedom, it will not deter these crazy people

  • 12.17.2012 7:32 AM PDT

I'm an Anarchist. I don't need a government to be a good person, but I'm glad it's here because some of you clearly do.

I'll be happy to give up my right to assault rifles when the military and police give up their assault rifles.

  • 12.17.2012 7:33 AM PDT

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


Posted by: Garland
i wish people would stop posting that, it's getting really annoying.

it's impractical and will not work.
FACT.

  • 12.17.2012 7:33 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Garshne
- 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?
These spree killers that attack shools and such usually fit a pretty standard psychological profile: teens and young adults, highly depressed, shunned/outcast by their peers, craving attention; ends in a murder-suicide. In the case of the VT massacre, the killer exhibited dangerous behaviour for years, but very little was done. I don't know enough to speak for other recent massacres, but in the case of VT there were obvious warning signs for a long time, and they were simply ignored.

This all goes back to my point earlier in this thread that how Americans deal with mental illness is a major factor in these shootings. The VT massacre was so preventable that it's sickening.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 7:38 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 7:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: spartain ken 15
Does it matter how many people they hurt or kill?


erm yes...

yes it absolutely does, or are human beings merely a statistic to you?

  • 12.17.2012 7:35 AM PDT

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


Posted by: spartain ken 15
Does it matter how many people they hurt or kill?
less people dying > more people dying.

why is that not obvious?

  • 12.17.2012 7:35 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
The point is not how easy it is but the intent.
The point is indeed how easy it is. Have you not read a single thing I have said?

People can use a lot of methods to hurt other people, if you take one option away, they have many other options to use.But do all of those options allow someone the ease to murder twenty people within the space of half an hour?

I could kill a guy with a spoon but that doesn't mean I'll kill twenty people at once with it.

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.And leaving things as they are will just make it inevitable that another shooting will occur.

Changing nothing guarantees that nothing will change.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 7:38 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 7:36 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: Garland
Posted by: Garshne
- 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?
These spree killers that attack shools and such usually fit a pretty standard psychological profile: teens and young adults, highly depressed, shunned/outcast by their peers, craving attention; ends in a murder-suicide. In the case of the VT massacre, the killer exhibited dangerous behaviour for years, but very little was done. I don't know enough to speak for other recent massacres, but in the case of VT there were obvious warning signs for a long time, and they were simply ignored.

This all goes back to my point earlier in this thread that how Americans deal with mental illness if a major factor in these shootings. The VT massacre was so preventable that it's sickening.


You are right, these shootings are something that needs to be done about the people, not the weapons.

If we can try and help the people who are suffering before they go crazy, then there will be significantly less shootings (already from the extremely low numbers).

I think people fail to see this is a people problem.

  • 12.17.2012 7:37 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: CultMiester4000
Posted by: Garland
i wish people would stop posting that, it's getting really annoying.
Nobody has ever given me a rebuttal beyond "lolnope."
Posted by: CultMiester4000
it's impractical and will not work.
FACT.
Saying "fact" after your opinion doesn't magically make it into a fact.

  • 12.17.2012 7:37 AM PDT

Do everyone a favor, get some intelligence, grow a set, bust a nut, and shut the fu­ck up.
Posted by: Anto91
you're retared for not knowing inside jokes
retard


Posted by: Garshne

One guy with a knife is going to kill a lot less people than one guy with a gun.

Serial killers have amounted more victims.
Posted by: Garshne
A gun is point, shoot, and you will injure someone. Easy to do in close range, but 'close range' can extend up to a hundred metres.

Wrong, so damn wrong. I see amateurs come to the range on a regular basis, especially the gangsta specials, who cant hit a target at ten feet while aiming with both hands. Much like a knife it takes training and practice to be efficient. The are far more likely to hit the target with a knife, then the gun they are using.

Second 100 meters{@300 feet) is not close range. You have to be a seriously good shot with a 9mm to hit accurately at that range. A 9mm will start dropping at 25 yrds i believe, and a .45 at is the same, or 75 feet. Fact is close range is really like 5-10 feet. Talk to people who have been in combat, they will not be using a pistol for a target at 100 meters.

Posted by: Garshne
A knife is slice, or stab while moving many parts of your body to the best effect, something which is not easy to do unless taught. Knives are deadly when used in the right place, but the right place is hard to get unless you've been taught, especially if your target plans to fight back.

You can run from a knife. You can't run from a bullet.

And no, knives don't always land pointy end in.


A knife can still be thrown, and while not deadly when the handle hits, with enough force can do whats needed.

Still fact remains, there is nothing but misinformation from both parties it seems in this thread.

  • 12.17.2012 7:38 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
Does it matter how many people they hurt or kill?


erm yes...

yes it absolutely does, or are human beings merely a statistic to you?


No, you were saying how less people would die with a knife attack than a gun one.

The point is though, if someone wanted to hurt people, they will find a way to do it.

  • 12.17.2012 7:38 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: CultMiester4000

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Does it matter how many people they hurt or kill?
less people dying > more people dying.

why is that not obvious?


Anyone getting hurt or killed is terrible.

The point is though that these attacks can't be prevented if you do not try and fix the person before they go crazy.

People should look out for signs in people rather than weapons.

  • 12.17.2012 7:40 AM PDT

Posted by: ferret
So because civilians don't need something, they shouldn't be allowed to have it? Seems a silly reason to make something illegal.
Ummm... That's not the reason at all. If you do not understand the reason why they should be illegal, perhaps you missed the news this past weekend.

Posted by: spartain ken 15
We have been able to have guns for close to 300 years now
I'm pretty sure a similar argument could have been made for slavery at some point. Does that mean it was right?

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Very few gun owners commit any violent crime, there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of gun owners in America who legally own a gun and never commit any violent crime with it.
I'm pretty sure the same could be said about nuclear bombs? In fact, I'm only aware of two incidents in the entire history of the world where nuclear bombs were used for mass murders. So, does that mean they should be legal for everyone to own?

  • 12.17.2012 7:40 AM PDT

Do everyone a favor, get some intelligence, grow a set, bust a nut, and shut the fu­ck up.
Posted by: Anto91
you're retared for not knowing inside jokes
retard


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.


You know, ive come to respect you and your opinions on the flood, but today you've gone full retard, and ive changed my mind.

  • 12.17.2012 7:41 AM PDT

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Does it matter how many people they hurt or kill?
Actually... Yes. Yes, it does.

  • 12.17.2012 7:41 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: ferret
So because civilians don't need something, they shouldn't be allowed to have it? Seems a silly reason to make something illegal.
Ummm... That's not the reason at all. If you do not understand the reason why they should be illegal, perhaps you missed the news this past weekend.
No assault rifles were used to commit any crimes this weekend.

  • 12.17.2012 7:41 AM PDT

Do everyone a favor, get some intelligence, grow a set, bust a nut, and shut the fu­ck up.
Posted by: Anto91
you're retared for not knowing inside jokes
retard


Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: ferret
So because civilians don't need something, they shouldn't be allowed to have it? Seems a silly reason to make something illegal.
Ummm... That's not the reason at all. If you do not understand the reason why they should be illegal, perhaps you missed the news this past weekend.


Doctors kill more people per year than guns, why hasn't regulations regarding education and medical practice been the forefront of talk in politics?

  • 12.17.2012 7:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: spartain ken 15

Posted by: CultMiester4000

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Does it matter how many people they hurt or kill?
less people dying > more people dying.

why is that not obvious?


Anyone getting hurt or killed is terrible.

The point is though that these attacks can't be prevented if you do not try and fix the person before they go crazy.

People should look out for signs in people rather than weapons.


We are well aware there are multiple problems, I agree that mental health issues are a big problem. I find it disturbing that even though his family were completely aware of his personality disorder they did nothing to help him.

But there is also nothing wrong with having stricter gun control laws, obviously not banning them entirely because that would not serve a very good purpose.

Also make it so that those people who do own guns keep them in a safe and secure place unless they will face fines or possible imprisonment if one of their guns is used in an unlawful act, even if they have been stolen like in the most recent case.

  • 12.17.2012 7:44 AM PDT

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: ferret
So because civilians don't need something, they shouldn't be allowed to have it? Seems a silly reason to make something illegal.
Ummm... That's not the reason at all. If you do not understand the reason why they should be illegal, perhaps you missed the news this past weekend.
No assault rifles were used to commit any crimes this weekend.
You seems to have missed the point. This weekend is an example of what happens when people can easily get their hands on guns (of any type). While the events this weekend may not have been carried out with an assault rifle, many similar events have been.

  • 12.17.2012 7:44 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: capitonRender007
Posted by: Garshne

One guy with a knife is going to kill a lot less people than one guy with a gun.

Serial killers have amounted more victims.
Serial killers =/= school massacres.
Posted by: Garshne
A gun is point, shoot, and you will injure someone. Easy to do in close range, but 'close range' can extend up to a hundred metres.

Wrong, so damn wrong. I see amateurs come to the range on a regular basis, especially the gangsta specials, who cant hit a target at ten feet while aiming with both hands. Much like a knife it takes training and practice to be efficient. The are far more likely to hit the target with a knife, then the gun they are using.

Second 100 meters{@300 feet) is not close range. You have to be a seriously good shot with a 9mm to hit accurately at that range. A 9mm will start dropping at 25 yrds i believe, and a .45 at is the same, or 75 feet. Fact is close range is really like 5-10 feet. Talk to people who have been in combat, they will not be using a pistol for a target at 100 meters.
Does that matter when all they need to do is fire wildly into a crowd?

Posted by: Garshne
A knife is slice, or stab while moving many parts of your body to the best effect, something which is not easy to do unless taught. Knives are deadly when used in the right place, but the right place is hard to get unless you've been taught, especially if your target plans to fight back.

You can run from a knife. You can't run from a bullet.

And no, knives don't always land pointy end in.


A knife can still be thrown, and while not deadly when the handle hits, with enough force can do whats needed.

Still fact remains, there is nothing but misinformation from both parties it seems in this thread.
You cannot throw a knife and have it always land pointy end in unless it was made for throwing, and you know how to throw a knife properly.

Furthermore, by throwing your knife, you have now lost your weapon.

You cannot easily disarm someone holding a gun when they are shooting at you. While the same can be said about knives it is still easier to stay out of a knife's reach.

Knives are not as deadly as a gun when used in the context of a school massacre, where the perpetrator is an untrained civilian. If you believe so you are wrong.

  • 12.17.2012 7:45 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

t3hAvenger77 - XBL (BF3, ME3, Blops)
decla1mer104 - Origin (BF3)
Steam


Posted by: spartain ken 15

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.
But they were shot by an assault rifle.

  • 12.17.2012 7:45 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: Big Black Bear
Posted by: ferret
So because civilians don't need something, they shouldn't be allowed to have it? Seems a silly reason to make something illegal.
Ummm... That's not the reason at all. If you do not understand the reason why they should be illegal, perhaps you missed the news this past weekend.

Posted by: spartain ken 15
We have been able to have guns for close to 300 years now
I'm pretty sure a similar argument could have been made for slavery at some point. Does that mean it was right?

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Very few gun owners commit any violent crime, there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of gun owners in America who legally own a gun and never commit any violent crime with it.
I'm pretty sure the same could be said about nuclear bombs? In fact, I'm only aware of two incidents in the entire history of the world where nuclear bombs were used for mass murders. So, does that mean they should be legal for everyone to own?


First off, a gun and a nuclear bomb are 2 completely different things. We don't have a gun that can level entire cities in 1 shot. A bomb =/= a firearm, come on man.

Also, there have been hundreds of nuclear bomb tests world wide and only 2 have been used in combat.

Our right to guns is meant to protect us from tyranny and defend ourselves if the government can't. If something were to happen, I think it is important to have an armed citizenry especially if the country is ever under attack.

Is keeping guns right? I think so. There are many responsible gun owners and I don't think it is fair to criticize them and remove their rights because of a few people who shoot people (which is not a right unless you are defending yourself).

  • 12.17.2012 7:45 AM PDT

Country: United States.
State: Pennsylvania.
County: Warren.
I graduated from high school on June-11-2011. I'm 19 right now. I'm turning 20 in December. I like playing video games, and board games. I like reading Sci-Fi, and World War II novels, and what not.

"There is nothing better in the world than being better at a video game than someone else....oh wait"

I wouldn't ban them I would do something with the ammo. Like the only way to get ammo for them is by a government controlled website. If you buy over a couple hundred rounds you would be put on a watch list for so long.

The other thing I would do is make gun owners do a test every year. Just to see if they are still stable enough to own a gun.

  • 12.17.2012 7:45 AM PDT

Do everyone a favor, get some intelligence, grow a set, bust a nut, and shut the fu­ck up.
Posted by: Anto91
you're retared for not knowing inside jokes
retard


Posted by: Mastergee


Also make it so that those people who do own guns keep them in a safe and secure place unless they will face fines or possible imprisonment if one of their guns is used in an unlawful act, even if they have been stolen like in the most recent case.


I agree that any psychological session that deems a person unsafe with guns, should stop them from buying, and until they are cleared, they cannot, enter that as a new marker in background checks, and it will be a big help.

But the whole idea of charging someone with a crime if someone steals their gun is bad, almost all crimes committed with guns, are with stolen or not legal guns. That would be ridiculous to implement something like that.

  • 12.17.2012 7:47 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: ThirstyAvenge
Posted by: spartain ken 15
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.
But they were shot by an assault rifle.
Please learn the definition of "assault rifle" before saying things like this.

  • 12.17.2012 7:47 AM PDT