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.
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
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.
OK, so we can agree on something.

I think that's a far more important factor in these killings than "Americans have too many guns."

  • 12.17.2012 8:00 AM PDT

Hurr


Posted by: Garland
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.
Or he could quickly break through the window and have the gun pointed at your head whilst he's moving.

  • 12.17.2012 8:01 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Wizzy Piggy

Posted by: ArchNinja64
Disagree. People are the problem, not guns.


"Guns don't kill people. People kill people... but guns help" - Eddie Izzard

  • 12.17.2012 8:02 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
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.


My home with locked doors should be sufficient enough to satisfy that.

I mean what constitutes this space? The level of protection? It can be insanely expensive to get a good safe, and that doesn't even guarantee it wont be broken into.

scratch that, ill take another stab.

Your logic is about the biggest case of dumb-blam!-y ive ever seen garshne, at least regarding this whole issue, you're pretty decent to say the least on most other things.

Congratulations.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 8:04 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 8:02 AM PDT

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
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.
OK, so we can agree on something.

I think that's a far more important factor in these killings than "Americans have too many guns."
Perhaps.

But answer this: Which is a quicker fix?

  • 12.17.2012 8:02 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: thehippyelite
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: CultMiester4000
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.
Or he could quickly break through the window and have the gun pointed at your head whilst he's moving.
This isn't a movie; criminals don't dive gracefully through windows and accost people before they have time to react, and especially not if the person is sitting there with a gun next to him.

  • 12.17.2012 8:04 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

I think it is important to note that the shooter did not use any "military grade guns".

  • 12.17.2012 8:06 AM PDT

Hurr

Or, as you said before, he would just shoot you through the window.

  • 12.17.2012 8:06 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
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.
OK, so we can agree on something.

I think that's a far more important factor in these killings than "Americans have too many guns."
Perhaps.

But answer this: Which is a quicker fix?
Allowing certified teachers to concealed carry.

Really, there is no "quick fix," and that's part of the problem. We have a lot of issues that are the result of our general society, our society, our long-standing government policies. Any real change will require a shift in how people think about and approach these problems.

One of the most important things is to, somehow, get people to think about things logically and rationally, instead of making knee-jerk emotional reactions.

  • 12.17.2012 8:06 AM PDT

Because way way back in the day when the colonists were fighting the war, the only reason they were on equal footing with the British was because the people had the same grade of gun as the British soldiers, and in fact many colonists had better rifles than the soldiers. The framers intended the constitution to be the people's permission slip for rebellion when the time came, and so they wanted civilians to have access to the same weapons the the government did.

Here

  • 12.17.2012 8:06 AM PDT

We need far more restrictions on who can get a gun.

  • 12.17.2012 8:07 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
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.


My home with locked doors should be sufficient enough to satisfy that.

I mean what constitutes this space? The level of protection? It can be insanely expensive to get a good safe, and that doesn't even guarantee it wont be broken into.

This is the last post, only more opinions, without an actual consideration to what would entail a process will continue.

Your logic is about the biggest case of dumb-blam!-y ive ever seen garshne, at least regarding this whole issue, you're pretty decent to say the least on most other things.

Congratulations.
That is the stance of the Australian government and my stance as well.

Every measure possible should be taken to prevent your weapon from being stolen. If you have not taken every measure that any reasonable person would regard as every measure possible, you have committed an act of negligence.
If a reasonable person can state that the measures you have taken to prevent your weapon from being stolen are every measure you could have possibly taken according to your income and any other contributing factor, you have not committed an act of negligence and are guilty of nothing.

  • 12.17.2012 8:07 AM PDT

Posted by: spartain ken 15
I think it is important to note that the shooter did not use any "military grade guns".
See... In my opinion, it's not important at all. I extend the argumet to just about any gun.

The only legitimate reason I can see to own a firearm is (other than one that is issued to you for your employment) is for hunting.

  • 12.17.2012 8:08 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: thehippyelite
Or, as you said before, he would just shoot you through the window.
Yes, but as I said, that doesn't happen either. Criminals aren't very likely to pre-emptively kill someone that happens to have a gun in his lap while surfing the internet (something else that's extremely unlikely). The average criminal doesn't want any kind of armed confrontation, and he doesn't want to shoot people unless it's necessary. Why? Because gunshots, especially at night, are immediately gonna draw attention to that house and result in the police being called.

  • 12.17.2012 8:09 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
I think it is important to note that the shooter did not use any "military grade guns".
See... In my opinion, it's not important at all. I extend the argumet to just about any gun.

The only legitimate reason I can see to own a firearm is (other than one that is issued to you for your employment) is for hunting.


It is very important

People want to remove guns that are not even being used to hurt people.

  • 12.17.2012 8:10 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
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.
Wrong, only in mass amounts, in quick succession, with the same account.

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

Regulation is already persistent, and will be amended, but some of your ideas are dumb as -blam!- all.

Posted by: Garshne

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

I can agree to an extent, but yet again your extreme end of the arguments and resolutions are dumb as -blam!- all.

Posted by: Garshne
Your current police force is not adequate and is in need of improvement.

A police force persistent across a country of this size, will always have its faults, it is far better than the majority of the world.

Posted by: Garshne
Your current crime rates are too damn high, and need to be lowered.


Compared to what, the rest of the world?

By actual rate, we are high, because its a huge country, by percentage, it isnt.

Learn2statistic

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


So ive gathered, in your use of 'your' you dont live here, how about do us all a favor, and not bring your foreign policy here, and let us deal with our own problems?

Still a simple fact here, more people die from doctor malpractice per year in the US, than from guns.

  • 12.17.2012 8:10 AM PDT

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
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.
OK, so we can agree on something.

I think that's a far more important factor in these killings than "Americans have too many guns."
Perhaps.

But answer this: Which is a quicker fix?
Allowing certified teachers to concealed carry.
I could agree with this point, but unfortunately, it only solves the situations that happen at schools. While these seem to be the most frequent and surely the most tragic, there are enough other examples of this type of situation for it to remain a problem.

  • 12.17.2012 8:11 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
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.
Wrong, only in mass amounts, in quick succession, with the same account.

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

Regulation is already persistent, and will be amended, but some of your ideas are dumb as -blam!- all.

Posted by: Garshne

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

I can agree to an extent, but yet again your extreme end of the arguments and resolutions are dumb as -blam!- all.

Posted by: Garshne
Your current police force is not adequate and is in need of improvement.

A police force persistent across a country of this size, will always have its faults, it is far better than the majority of the world.

Posted by: Garshne
Your current crime rates are too damn high, and need to be lowered.


Compared to what, the rest of the world?

By actual rate, we are high, because its a huge country, by percentage, it isnt.

Learn2statistic

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


So ive gathered, in your use of 'your' you dont live here, how about do us all a favor, and not bring your foreign policy here, and let us deal with our own problems?

Still a simple fact here, more people die from doctor malpractice per year in the US, than from guns.
Then find a way to fix that as well.

Your economy is going to hell which causes a high crime rate which the police can't handle, which leads to guns being more available for your defense which can lead to making them easier to steal or obtain by someone who wants to shoot up a school.

All these things are interlinked.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 8:13 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 8:11 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
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.


My home with locked doors should be sufficient enough to satisfy that.

I mean what constitutes this space? The level of protection? It can be insanely expensive to get a good safe, and that doesn't even guarantee it wont be broken into.

This is the last post, only more opinions, without an actual consideration to what would entail a process will continue.

Your logic is about the biggest case of dumb-blam!-y ive ever seen garshne, at least regarding this whole issue, you're pretty decent to say the least on most other things.

Congratulations.
That is the stance of the Australian government and my stance as well.

Every measure possible should be taken to prevent your weapon from being stolen. If you have not taken every measure that any reasonable person would regard as every measure possible, you have committed an act of negligence.
If a reasonable person can state that the measures you have taken to prevent your weapon from being stolen are every measure you could have possibly taken according to your income and any other contributing factor, you have not committed an act of negligence and are guilty of nothing.


Australian policy is one of the most ass backwards things ive ever seen, and it makes a lot of sense as to why you are posting what you are.

  • 12.17.2012 8:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Happy_Feet_2011
Because way way back in the day when the colonists were fighting the war, the only reason they were on equal footing with the British was because the people had the same grade of gun as the British soldiers, and in fact many colonists had better rifles than the soldiers. The framers intended the constitution to be the people's permission slip for rebellion when the time came, and so they wanted civilians to have access to the same weapons the the government did.

Here


Because that is totally relevant today.

  • 12.17.2012 8:12 AM PDT

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: spartain ken 15
I think it is important to note that the shooter did not use any "military grade guns".
See... In my opinion, it's not important at all. I extend the argumet to just about any gun.

The only legitimate reason I can see to own a firearm is (other than one that is issued to you for your employment) is for hunting.


It is very important

People want to remove guns that are not even being used to hurt people.
I don't really think that's true.

Give me an example of a gun that is "not being used to hurt people". Then, explain to me why it couldn't just as easily be.

  • 12.17.2012 8:12 AM PDT

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out"
- Bill Hicks


Posted by: Big Black Bear
The only legitimate reason I can see to own a firearm (other than one that is issued to you for your employment) is for hunting.


This.

I'd also like to say I have never seen any compelling arguments against gun control yet I have no doubt that nothing will change in the US with regards gun ownership despite the tragic events in Connecticut.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 8:13 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 8:12 AM PDT

Online ID: GriffGraff15

Assault rifles that civilians can buy are modified. Smaller magazines, no automatic fire, etc

I do think that we need to alter how these AR weapons are modified so that they can't be "unmodified" with pieces that allow for automatic fire.

  • 12.17.2012 8:13 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: iRuN KFC

Posted by: Big Black Bear
The only legitimate reason I can see to own a firearm (other than one that is issued to you for your employment) is for hunting.


This.

I'd also like to say I have never seen any compelling arguments against gun control yet I have no doubt that nothing will change in the US with regards gun ownership despite the tragic events in Connecticut.


Here is the thing, that is not reason we have a right to guns in the constitution.

We have a right to arm ourselves in case we need to defend our freedoms from tyranny or an oppressive force.

  • 12.17.2012 8:14 AM PDT

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

Posted by: Garland
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.
OK, so let's amend the example.

my gun is in my holster strapped to my side.
the burglar doesn't see it and assumes i'm unarmed.
he find another entrance and walks in on me.
i'm startled and reach for my gun but since he has his already out the same thing happens as before.

again, i'd have to have been aware that the burglar was there prior to seeing him in order to have my gun ready.

there is no equal footing for both parties and only the application of force from one onto the other.

but what if i go out for a drink and see him first?
i have my gun ready and he is startled to see me, so, again, there is no equal footing, only the application of force.

the only way it'd work is if everyone was ready to be jumped by someone with a gun all the time which is, like i said impractical.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 8:20 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 8:14 AM PDT