Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Gun Control
  • Subject: Gun Control
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Gun Control

Sincerely, the voice inside your head for whenever you read things.


Posted by: Viktor Reznov

Posted by: monitor 16807
Posted by: Viktor Reznov
Why don't we make it mandatory that at the age of 13 all citizens go through gun training and upon completion of the aforementioned training by law they must carry a concealed handgun everywhere they go.
Why not give every 13 year old a handgun? Is this for real?

It can be
I think your view is a good idea, however, I think all teenagers must also pass an IQ test in order to be able to conceal a weapon, so then ghetto thugs wouldn't just start shooting people.

  • 12.28.2012 12:38 PM PDT

About me: I am a vicious wolf of a man.

But really am sweet at heart. =)


Posted by: annoyinginge
Exactly, that cinema shooting would've ended much better if everybody had been carrying a gun.


It's recorded in pretty much every major shooting that when ever a shooter finds ANY sort of resistance to his attack they kill themselves. It happened at Columbine, it happened in Newtown, and it nearly happened in Colorado, it's just the facts. These people want to be REMEMBERED for what they've done, they don't care about how many people they actually kill.

Case in point, as soon as the Newtown shooter heard Police sirens he shot himself. Why? He was in a fortified structure, and still likely had plenty of ammunition, if his "assault rifle" as the media insists on calling it, was so deadly and full of ammunition in his "High capacity clip" (magazine much CNN), then why didn't he try to take out as many cops as possible, or continue to shoot people while the police breached?

Because successful police raids aren't as publicized as a random shooting incident.

The fact is, if one person in that theater had ANY weapon and fired at the shooter? He would have turned tail and ran, or the round would have knocked him on his ass and allowed someone to take him out.

Why do people insist that normal, law abiding citizens with firearms are dangerous? The reason why failed shooting attempts aren't publicized are because the media wants you to forget that virtually 100% of gun owners are law abiding, successful members of society that either enjoy sport shooting, or want to protect their homes. Even in Newton, the guy wasn't even a gun owner, he murdered his mom, then stole HER guns, essentially committing two felony crimes to do what he did.

Hmm. Murder is already illegal, and so is theft, theft of a firearm especially. So what can we do other than look out for more mentally ill people and stop them from doing this?

If taking guns away is the best solution to stop gun violence, by your reasoning, taking away cars is the best way to stop car accident deaths, or dare I say, taking away alcohol to stop drunk driving? That worked well the first time.

Finally, ask yourself this. If guns are really the problem, if we get rid of guns we should be safe. So why does our President, people like Mayor Bloomberg of New York, and our entire federal government need so many armed security around them? If they get people with guns surrounding them, why don't we?

Gamers lash back when ever media argues that games cause violence anyway, despite overwelming evidence to the contrary.

So if you think it's guns, not the gun owner, doesn't it mean it's the games, not the gamer?

Flawed. Logic.

  • 12.28.2012 12:46 PM PDT

An older gentleman once came up to me and said "There's no creativity left in the world of art, and if there is, I can't find it" and I just laughed and said "Well of course you can't, you can't find something unless you truly believe there is something there to be found." - Pacman


Posted by: Gottalovec4

Posted by: annoyinginge
Exactly, that cinema shooting would've ended much better if everybody had been carrying a gun.


It's recorded in pretty much every major shooting that when ever a shooter finds ANY sort of resistance to his attack they kill themselves. It happened at Columbine, it happened in Newtown, and it nearly happened in Colorado, it's just the facts. These people want to be REMEMBERED for what they've done, they don't care about how many people they actually kill.

Case in point, as soon as the Newtown shooter heard Police sirens he shot himself. Why? He was in a fortified structure, and still likely had plenty of ammunition, if his "assault rifle" as the media insists on calling it, was so deadly and full of ammunition in his "High capacity clip" (magazine much CNN), then why didn't he try to take out as many cops as possible, or continue to shoot people while the police breached?

Because successful police raids aren't as publicized as a random shooting incident.

The fact is, if one person in that theater had ANY weapon and fired at the shooter? He would have turned tail and ran, or the round would have knocked him on his ass and allowed someone to take him out.

Why do people insist that normal, law abiding citizens with firearms are dangerous? The reason why failed shooting attempts aren't publicized are because the media wants you to forget that virtually 100% of gun owners are law abiding, successful members of society that either enjoy sport shooting, or want to protect their homes. Even in Newton, the guy wasn't even a gun owner, he murdered his mom, then stole HER guns, essentially committing two felony crimes to do what he did.

Hmm. Murder is already illegal, and so is theft, theft of a firearm especially. So what can we do other than look out for more mentally ill people and stop them from doing this?

If taking guns away is the best solution to stop gun violence, by your reasoning, taking away cars is the best way to stop car accident deaths, or dare I say, taking away alcohol to stop drunk driving? That worked well the first time.

Finally, ask yourself this. If guns are really the problem, if we get rid of guns we should be safe. So why does our President, people like Mayor Bloomberg of New York, and our entire federal government need so many armed security around them? If they get people with guns surrounding them, why don't we?

Gamers lash back when ever media argues that games cause violence anyway, despite overwelming evidence to the contrary.

So if you think it's guns, not the gun owner, doesn't it mean it's the games, not the gamer?

Flawed. Logic.

Would be a shame if this post went to waste

  • 12.28.2012 12:56 PM PDT

http://i.imgur.com/fsISj.png

Posted by: Gottalovec4
Posted by: annoyinginge
Exactly, that cinema shooting would've ended much better if everybody had been carrying a gun.


It's recorded in pretty much every major shooting that when ever a shooter finds ANY sort of resistance to his attack they kill themselves. It happened at Columbine, it happened in Newtown, and it nearly happened in Colorado, it's just the facts. These people want to be REMEMBERED for what they've done, they don't care about how many people they actually kill.

Case in point, as soon as the Newtown shooter heard Police sirens he shot himself. Why? He was in a fortified structure, and still likely had plenty of ammunition, if his "assault rifle" as the media insists on calling it, was so deadly and full of ammunition in his "High capacity clip" (magazine much CNN), then why didn't he try to take out as many cops as possible, or continue to shoot people while the police breached?

Because successful police raids aren't as publicized as a random shooting incident.

The fact is, if one person in that theater had ANY weapon and fired at the shooter? He would have turned tail and ran, or the round would have knocked him on his ass and allowed someone to take him out.

Why do people insist that normal, law abiding citizens with firearms are dangerous? The reason why failed shooting attempts aren't publicized are because the media wants you to forget that virtually 100% of gun owners are law abiding, successful members of society that either enjoy sport shooting, or want to protect their homes. Even in Newton, the guy wasn't even a gun owner, he murdered his mom, then stole HER guns, essentially committing two felony crimes to do what he did.

Hmm. Murder is already illegal, and so is theft, theft of a firearm especially. So what can we do other than look out for more mentally ill people and stop them from doing this?

If taking guns away is the best solution to stop gun violence, by your reasoning, taking away cars is the best way to stop car accident deaths, or dare I say, taking away alcohol to stop drunk driving? That worked well the first time.

Finally, ask yourself this. If guns are really the problem, if we get rid of guns we should be safe. So why does our President, people like Mayor Bloomberg of New York, and our entire federal government need so many armed security around them? If they get people with guns surrounding them, why don't we?

Gamers lash back when ever media argues that games cause violence anyway, despite overwelming evidence to the contrary.

So if you think it's guns, not the gun owner, doesn't it mean it's the games, not the gamer?

Flawed. Logic.

That was a comment I made for discussion value more than anything else at the start of the thread. If you want to debate this, at the very least reply to my most recent posts.

  • 12.28.2012 1:02 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4