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


No, my point was anyone getting hurt is terrible, it doesn't matter how many people are hurt or killed.

People argue a gun can kill more people than a knife attack, so what, people are still getting hurt.

The point is, the weapon is not the one that committed the crime, the person who used it to hurt people did.

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

They call me graland.

Posted by: Big Black Bear
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.
He killed the gun's owner (his mother) and stole the guns.

This weekend is an example of what happens when mentally unstable people are left untreated.

  • 12.17.2012 7:48 AM PDT

Posted by: capitonRender007
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?
That's a good question.

My best answer is because medical accidents tend to be fairly isolated incidents... One doctor makes a mistake that results in a single death. The sad state of the world is that it takes a large tragedy (like the one this past weekend) for issues to get enough public attention for change.

And just because I don't have a good answer, that doesn't mean I disagree with the point you are making. But let me ask this: Are the two topics mutually exclusive? Can we not lobby for improvements in both areas to save even more lives?

  • 12.17.2012 7:48 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: 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.
Someone stealing your gun because it wasn't stored correctly is negligence. If that negligence leads to someone dying, that is manslaughter.

  • 12.17.2012 7:49 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: 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.


Ok remove guns, next available options is bombs, or chemical weapons, all easily available to be made by even the simplest of person, with an internet connection. You and everyone else that thinks regulating guns will solve the issue are the ones that are wrong. There are so many more factors, and your blind ignorance to that makes you look a fool.

  • 12.17.2012 7:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: spartain ken 15
People argue a gun can kill more people than a knife attack, so what, people are still getting hurt.


This is the absolute worst logic I have ever seen.

  • 12.17.2012 7:49 AM PDT

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

Posted by: Garland
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.

OK, i shall go through this for the millionth time (and at least the second time with you).

here i am sitting in my room at my laptop, trusty revolver next to me.
outside my window there's a burglar, with his own gun ready in his hand.
he sees my revolver and, according to you, he'd think "oh sheet, he's got a gun too. this is a pretty even fight so i might not win"
well let me tell you, he doesn't think that.
instead he thinks "i have the upper hand since i have the element of surprise."
he then proceeds to smash the glass, clamber through the window, hold his gun to my head and threaten that he'll blow it clean off if i so much as sneeze in the way of my own gun.

equal footing?
maybe if i was ready waiting for him, but otherwise (the far more probable situation), no way.

  • 12.17.2012 7:50 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: capitonRender007
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.


People need to keep them safe, if someone is killed with their guns then I believe they are partly responsible.

  • 12.17.2012 7:51 AM PDT

Posted by: spartain ken 15
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).
You seem to have completely danced around my arguement... Well done.

I'm aware that guns and nuclear bombs are two completely different things. I was using that point to point out how silly your logic was.

  • 12.17.2012 7:51 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: capitonRender007
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.
Someone stealing your gun because it wasn't stored correctly is negligence. If that negligence leads to someone dying, that is manslaughter.


OK so a stolen car, knife or other objects that result in death should be treated the same.

Do you not see how stupid this sounds?

Clearly not.

Personally i have all my stuff stored and locked, if im not carrying, but if someone truly wants to steal it they will, but hey, since i couldn't prevent their ultimate intention of stealing my guns or weapons, i am now responsible for their actions.

/your logic

  • 12.17.2012 7:52 AM PDT

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
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.
He killed the gun's owner (his mother) and stole the guns.

This weekend is an example of what happens when mentally unstable people are left untreated.
Yes, it is a good example of that as well.

  • 12.17.2012 7:52 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: BerzerkCommando
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.


Totally against that, it is an invasion of your right to privacy (freedom from surveillance) and there is no probable cause you are commiting a crime to be watched over.

It is not uncommon for people to have thousands of rounds of ammunition in bulk, especially for rifles.

Also if the government controls ammo it creates a monopoly and puts thousands of arms dealers out of business and the people who manufacture the ammo in the states.

Posted by: BerzerkCommando
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.

How do you define that? How do you enforce that?

People are required to take a class to get a concealed carry and most people who buy a gun go through basic training for firearms safety.

Also someone could bs there way through an evaluation and still kill people.

  • 12.17.2012 7:52 AM PDT

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


No, my point was anyone getting hurt is terrible, it doesn't matter how many people are hurt or killed.
No, I got that. It's pretty much exactly how you worded it the first time.

My point is.... Yes, it does matter.

  • 12.17.2012 7:53 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

Posted by: capitonRender007
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.


People need to keep them safe, if someone is killed with their guns then I believe they are partly responsible.


What constitues safe?

Stored and locked in a closet?
In a gun safe?
In a storage facility in a guns tore?
In a bank?

All can still be broken into and stolen.

Think before you people implement this dumb logic.

You cannot prevent someone doing something like breaking in your house, breaking into a gun safe, and stealing weapons, if they really want to, and now, you want someone who was the victim to be responsible for the actions of the thief.

WTF is wrong with you people?

Im done with this thread, too much stupid in one place to even bother discussing anything.

  • 12.17.2012 7:55 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
People argue a gun can kill more people than a knife attack, so what, people are still getting hurt.


This is the absolute worst logic I have ever seen.



People will get hurt regardless of what weapon is used unless the user is incompetent.

A weapon knows no pain, no anger, no sympathy. It is on;y as good as the user.

A knife can be extremely deadly just as a gun can be ineffective in the hands of an untrained and incompetent operator.

The point is this, it doesn't matter the weapon, it matters who is wielding it and if someone wants to hurt someone bad enough, they will find a way to do it. By removing the rights of gun owners, you would only prevent responsible people from owning certain guns.

  • 12.17.2012 7:56 AM PDT

Current members of the Gnome Empire:
Fridge Gnome
Freezer Gnome
Blender Gnome
Oven Gnome
Da Chrome Gnome
Zomb1e Gnome

My question to all this is...

Hypothetically, we reach the conclusion that the public shouldn't have as many/any guns. Now what?

Guns aren't cheap, people aren't just going to give up thousands of dollars of property. Does the government buy them all?

Even then, you'd have to go to every house in the country, and what is stopping people from saying "Nope, no guns here".

Everyone can argue all day long about gun rights, but end the end, there's just no way to remove guns from the equation.

That's why I'd rather have 1 out of a thousand people be a maniac with a gun, with the other 999 sane people pointing a gun right back at him.

  • 12.17.2012 7:56 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: spartain ken 15
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: spartain ken 15
Does it matter how many people they hurt or kill?
Actually... Yes. Yes, it does.


No, my point was anyone getting hurt is terrible, it doesn't matter how many people are hurt or killed.
No, I got that. It's pretty much exactly how you worded it the first time.

My point is.... Yes, it does matter.


Obviously more people getting hurt is worse than less people but that is not determined by what weapon you are using.

  • 12.17.2012 7:57 AM PDT

I don't see why you need an Ak-47. Not even sure if AKs are even allowed in this country.

  • 12.17.2012 7:57 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: capitonRender007

Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: capitonRender007
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.


People need to keep them safe, if someone is killed with their guns then I believe they are partly responsible.


What constitues safe?

Stored and locked in a closet?
In a gun safe?
In a storage facility in a guns tore?
In a bank?

All can still be broken into and stolen.

Think before you people implement this dumb logic.

You cannot prevent someone doing something like breaking in your house, breaking into a gun safe, and stealing weapons, if they really want to, and now, you want someone who was the victim to be responsible for the actions of the thief.

WTF is wrong with you people?

Im done with this thread, too much stupid in one place to even bother discussing anything.


How about keeping the fact you have guns a secret and storing them in a secure place which also isn't very obvious? Sounds to me as if Americans keep all their guns lieing around and this needs to be stopped.

  • 12.17.2012 7:57 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: CultMiester4000
Posted by: Garland
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.

OK, i shall go through this for the millionth time (and at least the second time with you).

here i am sitting in my room at my laptop, trusty revolver next to me.
outside my window there's a burglar, with his own gun ready in his hand.
he sees my revolver and, according to you, he'd think "oh sheet, he's got a gun too. this is a pretty even fight so i might not win"
well let me tell you, he doesn't think that.
instead he thinks "i have the upper hand since i have the element of surprise."
he then proceeds to smash the glass, clamber through the window, hold his gun to my head and threaten that he'll blow it clean off if i so much as sneeze in the way of my own gun.

equal footing?
maybe if i was ready waiting for him, but otherwise (the far more probable situation), no way.
That is literally the worst rebuttal I've ever seen.

First off, very few people are just going to sit around with a gun lying next to them on a table. But let's roll with that. If a criminal is watching you through the window and sees a gun next to you, he's either going to move on to another house, or he's just going to shoot you through the window (I've never heard of any example of the latter). In your example, he breaks the window, climbs inside, and then puts a gun to your head; but you already said you have your gun sitting out next to you. You could just shoot the moron as he's taking the time to break the window and crawl through the opening.

Your. attempt at a rebuttal demonstrates a complete ignorance of basic gun handling, criminal behaviour, and past instances of home defense.

  • 12.17.2012 7:58 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
Posted by: capitonRender007
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.
Someone stealing your gun because it wasn't stored correctly is negligence. If that negligence leads to someone dying, that is manslaughter.


OK so a stolen car, knife or other objects that result in death should be treated the same.

Do you not see how stupid this sounds?

Clearly not.

Personally i have all my stuff stored and locked, if im not carrying, but if someone truly wants to steal it they will, but hey, since i couldn't prevent their ultimate intention of stealing my guns or weapons, i am now responsible for their actions.

/your logic
If the law requires that your weapon be kept in a place that is safe from easy access by children and thieves,
and your weapon was not being kept in a place that is safe from easy access by children or thieves when it was stolen i.e. left out of its safe or locker, that is an act of negligence on your part and you should be held partially responsible for its eventual use. Your negligence has lead to the grave loss of life and you should be charged for it.

  • 12.17.2012 7:58 AM PDT

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


Posted by: spartain ken 15

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


No, my point was anyone getting hurt is terrible, it doesn't matter how many people are hurt or killed.
No, I got that. It's pretty much exactly how you worded it the first time.

My point is.... Yes, it does matter.


Obviously more people getting hurt is worse than less people but that is not determined by what weapon you are using.
yes it is.
you are in denial.

you can kill more people faster and with more ease with a gun than with a knife.

  • 12.17.2012 7:59 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
Ok remove guns, next available options is bombs, or chemical weapons, all easily available to be made by even the simplest of person, with an internet connection. You and everyone else that thinks regulating guns will solve the issue are the ones that are wrong. There are so many more factors, and your blind ignorance to that makes you look a fool.
Purchasing materials for bomb making often puts you under suspicion of being a terrorist. Governments do try to keep track of people accessing bomb-making websites, even if it isn't explicitly stated.

Regulating guns are a single step in making the U.S. a better place to live in.

Your current firearm restrictions are not adequate and are in need of improvement.

Your current police force is not adequate and is in need of improvement.

Your current crime rates are too damn high, and need to be lowered.

These are all things that need to be accomplished so that America can become a better place.

  • 12.17.2012 7:59 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: Fridge Gnome
My question to all this is...

Hypothetically, we reach the conclusion that the public shouldn't have as many/any guns. Now what?

Guns aren't cheap, people aren't just going to give up thousands of dollars of property. Does the government buy them all?

Even then, you'd have to go to every house in the country, and what is stopping people from saying "Nope, no guns here".

Everyone can argue all day long about gun rights, but end the end, there's just no way to remove guns from the equation.

That's why I'd rather have 1 out of a thousand people be a maniac with a gun, with the other 999 sane people pointing a gun right back at him.


I think the bigger issue in this equation is the person not the gun. A gun does not think, it does not choose it's targets, a gun only operates based on what someone makes it do.

I think it is easier for people to blame guns rather than blaming a person who had psychological problems and needed help but never got it. People can't seem to handle/accept people are the problem. This is probably why violent video games and books are blamed for acts of violence too.

  • 12.17.2012 7:59 AM PDT

Posted by: spartain ken 15
A knife can be extremely deadly just as a gun can be ineffective in the hands of an untrained and incompetent operator.
Give a toddler a knife in a crowded area. I bet they only end up hurting themself.

Now, give a toddler a gun in a crowded area and see what happens.

If you are really arguing that knives are as big of a problem as guns, then I really question your sanity.

Posted by: spartain ken 15
By removing the rights of gun owners, you would only prevent responsible people from owning certain guns.
No... I think you prevent a great deal more than that.

  • 12.17.2012 8:00 AM PDT