UPSB v4
Serious Discussion / Guns vs No Guns
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 00:55:47
Any thoughts. Assuming there weren't ghetto ways to get guns and that guns were not so common. I would be for a ban of guns. For protection, I'd get one of those high powered bean bag shooters. cuz that shooting today was example of how dumb guns are in crazy people's hands
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 01:04:31
A very controversial topic and there are many good arguments but I would have to agree. Police couldn't pull people over for having a gun anymore. :I
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 01:13:33
Have guns, but there's got to be some control over how it's used.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 01:22:07
Supergirl wrote: Have guns, but there's got to be some control over how it's used.
Then you get worst of both worlds. Because if they're available then that means they'll be on the black market for the crazies, there's no way to avoid that if you make it available. But also they're less common for "regular" people to have them for the "good" reasons. But for real, how often are guns used for good? Maybe 1% of the time? less than that? The theoretical arguments for allowing guns are all fine and good, but it's blatantly obvious it doesn't work EDIT: That being said, I own a shotgun lol. Not that it does me any good, it's just fun to shoot at the range every now and then haha. But I wish they weren't legal -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 01:33:18
no guns...
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 01:36:10
No guns. If stupid people don't have guns, they won't shoot anybody. And there will always be stupid people in this world. For the good/smart people who want a gun, too bad, idiots ruined it for them.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 02:10:53
For whatever good reasons there are for making guns legal, they are outnumbered by the threats of the maniacs with guns. If guns were illegal, there would be almost no need to protect yourself with a gun because the mad people probably would not have a gun.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 02:14:13
Sadly, as long as there are people, there will be conflict. People just can't tolerate others for some reason. If guns didn't exist, people would find other ways to hurt each other. I think that the best way to go about it is to teach and practice tolerance, equality, and peace.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 03:31:43
No guns
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 03:50:35
Replace them with potato cannons!
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 03:55:30
Wow, seems like a lot of people here are anti-gun. I see gun ownership as a civil right so regardless of how crazy people use it, it wouldn't be a good enough reason to ban guns. According to Gallup polls a large percentage of Americans own guns (somewhere along the tens of millions range). Compare that to the number of gun related deaths/injuries per year, CDC reports 50,000 - 60,000 injuries with around 30,000 of them being deaths. Out of those deaths, a little over half of them are suicides (~55%). So the (overwhelmingly) majority of gun owners aren't murderers. (Sorry for no link to source, CDC website is very slow) Just because there is a very small group of people that use firearms for violent reasons, it doesn't really necessitate the need to ban all guns for everyone who obtained them legally, and have done nothing wrong with them. Sure, you may be thinking, "Why not just ban guns? It's not like people actually use them for 'good' reasons at all?" but that's not the point. You'd be banning guns mainly just for the sake of banning them since only a small amount of people use them violently anyway. That'd be like banning swords just because a few dozen people get stabbed to death by them compared to the several thousand number of swords that are owned just for showcase. In USA, there's no law/provision that prohibits the possession of a sword, so people have the right to own one simply because they can. Sure, there may not be a good reason to own a sword (I can't think of one), but that doesn't give you a reason to ban them either, same goes with guns. On a side note, farmers pretty much need guns. There is no other quick/painless way to slaughter/put down animals than a bullet to the forehead. IMO if you don't think gun ownership is a civil right, then this should be good enough reason not to ban guns. -Edit: If you're wondering, no, I don't own a gun, never used one in my life.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 04:12:25
Loanshark wrote: Wow, seems like a lot of people here are anti-gun. I see gun ownership as a civil right so regardless of how crazy people use it, it wouldn't be a good enough reason to ban guns.
Lol, "Begging the question" fallacy. That's like me saying pot is bad because it's illegal. Civil liberties are defined by the constitutionAccording to Gallup polls a large percentage of Americans own guns (somewhere along the tens of millions range). Compare that to the number of gun related deaths/injuries per year, CDC reports 50,000 - 60,000 injuries with around 30,000 of them being deaths. Out of those deaths, a little over half of them are suicides (~55%). So the (overwhelmingly) majority of gun owners aren't murderers. (Sorry for no link to source, CDC website is very slow) Just because there is a very small group of people that use firearms for violent reasons, it doesn't really necessitate the need to ban all guns for everyone who obtained them legally, and have done nothing wrong with them.
All very meaningless info. Proportions and percentages don't matter in the slightest, the question at hand is whether the country would be better off without legal gun sale.Sure, you may be thinking, "Why not just ban guns? It's not like people actually use them for 'good' reasons at all?" but that's not the point. You'd be banning guns mainly just for the sake of banning them since only a small amount of people use them violently anyway. That'd be like banning swords just because a few dozen people get stabbed to death by them compared to the several thousand number of swords that are owned just for showcase. In USA, there's no law/provision that prohibits the possession of a sword, so people have the right to own one simply because they can. Sure, there may not be a good reason to own a sword (I can't think of one), but that doesn't give you a reason to ban them either, same goes with guns.
See above. You're using a lot of rhetoric that doesn't change anything ...On a side note, farmers pretty much need guns. There is no other quick/painless way to slaughter/put down animals than a bullet to the forehead. IMO if you don't think gun ownership is a civil right, then this should be good enough reason not to ban guns.
Lol a joke maybe? Not sure if serious. We don't use guns put down humans, why do we NEED guns to do it for animals. There are tons of fast ways to kill an animal lol Main point is, nothing you posted there refutes any of the ideas presented that it would be beneficial to have a gun ban. All this civil liberty status quo bullshit is popularity-contest politician talk -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 04:12:26
Loanshark wrote: Wow, seems like a lot of people here are anti-gun. I see gun ownership as a civil right so regardless of how crazy people use it, it wouldn't be a good enough reason to ban guns.
Lol, "Begging the question" fallacy. That's like me saying pot is bad because it's illegal. Civil liberties are defined by the constitutionAccording to Gallup polls a large percentage of Americans own guns (somewhere along the tens of millions range). Compare that to the number of gun related deaths/injuries per year, CDC reports 50,000 - 60,000 injuries with around 30,000 of them being deaths. Out of those deaths, a little over half of them are suicides (~55%). So the (overwhelmingly) majority of gun owners aren't murderers. (Sorry for no link to source, CDC website is very slow) Just because there is a very small group of people that use firearms for violent reasons, it doesn't really necessitate the need to ban all guns for everyone who obtained them legally, and have done nothing wrong with them.
All very meaningless info. Proportions and percentages don't matter in the slightest, the question at hand is whether the country would be better off without legal gun sale.Sure, you may be thinking, "Why not just ban guns? It's not like people actually use them for 'good' reasons at all?" but that's not the point. You'd be banning guns mainly just for the sake of banning them since only a small amount of people use them violently anyway. That'd be like banning swords just because a few dozen people get stabbed to death by them compared to the several thousand number of swords that are owned just for showcase. In USA, there's no law/provision that prohibits the possession of a sword, so people have the right to own one simply because they can. Sure, there may not be a good reason to own a sword (I can't think of one), but that doesn't give you a reason to ban them either, same goes with guns.
See above. You're using a lot of rhetoric that doesn't change anything ...On a side note, farmers pretty much need guns. There is no other quick/painless way to slaughter/put down animals than a bullet to the forehead. IMO if you don't think gun ownership is a civil right, then this should be good enough reason not to ban guns.
Lol a joke maybe? Not sure if serious. We don't use guns put down humans, why do we NEED guns to do it for animals. There are tons of fast ways to kill an animal lol Main point is, nothing you posted there refutes any of the ideas presented that it would be beneficial to have a gun ban. All this civil liberty status quo bullshit is popularity-contest politician talk -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 04:23:38
I wouldn't say I am anti-guns but I am not pro-guns either. I believe that there should be much stricter laws regarding guns, ie doing a background search of they guy before handing them a gun, checking his police record, mental problems etc. etc. my point is that people are going to get a gun illegally if they really want it, that is to say if guns are illegal so making banning guns is kind of a temporary solution instead of a permanent one.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 06:39:03
I like this song and it fits the topic and like me, it is against guns being handled by the criminals and the lines towards the end it is what we need. "We were given the right to bear arms. When our land was all ranch and farms. The law is old and in need of updating. There's no time time for hesitating." We need stricter laws on who can get possession of a weapon. Either that or make it harder for one to get one. I don't believe in "normal" citizens to have one. Having one would probably make them want to use it.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 08:41:06
If you outlaw guns only outlaws would have guns. Just because a good is "banned" doesn't mean there is no supply. Criminals are gonna have guns regardless of law.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 08:50:40
Am I the only one that agrees with Chris Rock when I say "Instead of gun control we should have bullet control."? There are reasons to own a gun other than violence, I'm anti-gun because I can't think of good a reason for owning one other than hunting and protection, (protection isn't needed all that much and hunting is just retarded imo) but if there was a higher cost on bullets or or just make them harder to get, or both ( andmaybe I'm being a little too naive when I say this) but maybe ppl would think twice about shooting something/someone if it cost so much to replace ammo.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 08:57:55
M@V3R1CK wrote: Am I the only one that agrees with Chris Rock when I say "Instead of gun control we should have bullet control."? There are reasons to own a gun other than violence, I'm anti-gun because I can't think of good a reason for owning one other than hunting and protection, (protection isn't needed all that much and hunting is just retarded imo) but if there was a higher cost on bullets or or just make them harder to get, or both ( andmaybe I'm being a little too naive when I say this) but maybe ppl would think twice about shooting something/someone if it cost so much to replace ammo.
Lol yeah that's true. Did you guys hear that he bought some 6000 rounds of bullets 0_0 -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 09:02:33
I'm all for people owning guns. Personally I hate them, I feel like you should have to do more than point and click to take something's life. With that being said yes I have shot guns before and I understand that it's a bit more than 'point and click'. I don't think making them illegal would do any good, we would have had to decided long ago as a planet we wouldn't use them.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 09:08:56
Apocalyptic Shadows wrote: Lol yeah that's true. Did you guys hear that he bought some 6000 rounds of bullets 0_0
I bet he wouldn't have bought that much had it cost $100 or so for a box of ammo. -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 13:33:10
I think people should have the right to own guns. What I keep thinking is if there was one person in that theater with a sidearm, and was a decent shot, many many people could have been saved. If this unfortunate event happened in a theater in Texas, I think the situation would have been stopped much sooner with the amount of pistol permits down their, but now I'm straying from the topic. I know everyone says it, but I think its true, "It takes one nut job to ruin it for everyone else,". I personally don't know anyone who has a pistol permit.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 13:52:37
In USA people will never be arrested for having a gun because of the our 2nd Amendment. Which is the right to bear arms. But the best we can do is have metal detectors in popular places like concerts or presidential speeches. We really couldn't have prevented this movie theater massacre.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 14:54:04
astronaut wrote: In USA people will never be arrested for having a gun because of the our 2nd Amendment. Which is the right to bear arms.
Lol that's ironic, considering Amendment means "change", and you're saying it's impossible that it'll change haha. People used to say "In USA people will never be arrested for having a slave because of the constitution" also lol Anywho, the people talking about guns still being everywhere if we outlaw them make sense, but OP said "Assuming there weren't ghetto ways to get guns and that guns were not so common", so that's the discussion I'm having -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 14:59:22
real criminals dont go around shooting random ppl in public places though, they're not looking for attention its the weirdos who go around making shootings, i think banning guns would make those isolated individuals much harder to get guns because they're not legit criminals its all about containment, making places that are supposed to be safe safe and places that are supposed to be shady to avoid. the fact that criminals can get illegal guns easily will not compromise the security of supposed safe places.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 16:37:22
Tentcell wrote: I think people should have the right to own guns. What I keep thinking is if there was one person in that theater with a sidearm, and was a decent shot, many many people could have been saved. If this unfortunate event happened in a theater in Texas, I think the situation would have been stopped much sooner with the amount of pistol permits down their, but now I'm straying from the topic. I know everyone says it, but I think its true, "It takes one nut job to ruin it for everyone else,". I personally don't know anyone who has a pistol permit.
The problem is, what if they missed? Also, the person had extensive gear on to protect from bullets. What if the person with the gun drew attention to his/herself and got shot? What if the cops thought THEY were the gunman and shot them? -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 16:55:40
I thought the shooting happened in colorado....
Tentcell wrote: I think people should have the right to own guns. What I keep thinking is if there was one person in that theater with a sidearm, and was a decent shot, many many people could have been saved. If this unfortunate event happened in a theater in Texas, I think the situation would have been stopped much sooner with the amount of pistol permits down their, but now I'm straying from the topic. I know everyone says it, but I think its true, "It takes one nut job to ruin it for everyone else,". I personally don't know anyone who has a pistol permit.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 16:57:53
Fuse wrote: The problem is, what if they missed? Also, the person had extensive gear on to protect from bullets. What if the person with the gun drew attention to his/herself and got shot? What if the cops thought THEY were the gunman and shot them?
What if, what if, what if... I did say "a decent shot" if you would refer to the second line of my statement. If someone is a decent shot, and you catch someone by surprise (the gunman probably wouldn't expect an armed civilian most likely...) you will most likely get him, or at least stun him so others could pin him or something. As either of us were not at this movie theater when this shit hit the fan, neither of us would know if this would actually be possible. And the cops didn't shoot the gunman, why would they shoot a person shooting at the described gunman? There were people in the theater calling 911, describing what the gunman was wearing and stuff. I mean all of the stuff that you had said COULD have happened along with the stuff that I said, but who really knows... -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 16:59:12
Alex wrote: I thought the shooting happened in colorado....
:facepalm: -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 17:00:22
Why the facepalm? I thoughtt it happened in colorado
Tentcell wrote: :facepalm:
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 17:07:21
Alex wrote: Why the facepalm? I thoughtt it happened in colorado
It did, I was saying if if it happened in Texas, this guy would be full of holes, because there are quite a few people who carry side arms. -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 17:26:35
Tentcell wrote: It did, I was saying if if it happened in Texas, this guy would be full of holes, because there are quite a few people who carry side arms.
Lol your'e wrong. I lived in Texas 4 years. Even if the population carrying concealed weapons is *SLIGHTLY* higher than elsewhere, if you think that when a man dressed entirely in tactical combat gear, carrying an assault rifle, gas grenades, a shotgun, and 2 pistols walks into the theater, people do anything but try to escape, you're out of your mind. Nobody, upon seeing that guy, would stand up, pull his little pistol from his holster and try to combat that guy. Your logic is the same as those douchebags who say things like "well if I had been on those 9/11 flights, things would have been different, I would have taken out those terrorists." It's revisionist thinking and it's not accurate -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 17:40:44
strat1227 wrote: Lol your'e wrong. I lived in Texas 4 years. Even if the population carrying concealed weapons is *SLIGHTLY* higher than elsewhere, if you think that when a man dressed entirely in tactical combat gear, carrying an assault rifle, gas grenades, a shotgun, and 2 pistols walks into the theater, people do anything but try to escape, you're out of your mind. Nobody, upon seeing that guy, would stand up, pull his little pistol from his holster and try to combat that guy. Your logic is the same as those douchebags who say things like "well if I had been on those 9/11 flights, things would have been different, I would have taken out those terrorists." It's revisionist thinking and it's not accurate
I'm not trying to say that [B]I[/B] would have taken out that guy, but my logic is kind of there. What I'm just thinking is larger amount of guns being carried by people in Texas=more of a chance of someone could have done something. -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 17:47:37
Lol you said if it happened in Texas, he'd be full of holes. How about this, if guns were illegal he wouldn't have had a goddamn assault rifle in the first place lol. It's like if someone attacked a city with a tank and people saying "well if the people in that town had their own tanks they would have defended themselves." How about you just dont let people have tanks?
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 19:01:52
guns illegal =/= no guns at all. If you make guns illegal, all the law abiding citizens wont have guns, only the criminals will. Also, creating a bigger black market for arms dealings :\
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 19:32:50
criminals will find ways to get guns either way so that leaves the innocent people defenseless. but considering they wont be able to find guns easily, id say no guns. then, at least, it wont be a one-shot kill. people will be able to fight them the truth is that there is no way to stop people from getting guns and there prob never will. and i agree with strat. there is no guarantee the shooting in colorado couldve been stopped even if people had guns inside the theater. there are several factors involved such as acting spontaneously to shoot the shooter (which will prob miss), shooting skills, etc it would be faster for the people to just tackle the guy or something. making ownership of guns doesnt seem to affect the number of shootings anyway because they happen in places that people usually dont bring guns (schools, etc) even if the state says you can have guns, certain places outbid it anyway so its pointless and i saw stats on reddit (lol) that 17 out of 24 of recent shootings happened in gun friendly states...so ya
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 20:12:23
King wrote: guns illegal =/= no guns at all. If you make guns illegal, all the law abiding citizens wont have guns, only the criminals will. Also, creating a bigger black market for arms dealings :\
Again, read OP's post. -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 20:21:14
Would it matter if there were or were not guns? It's not like having them not be there are going to stop the insane person from killing others until its happened. It's not the gun that kills people it's the person.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 20:23:35
So youre talking a perfect world situation? Then hell yes, ban all guns. But in reality thatd be silly
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 20:31:45
spenpinner wrote: Would it matter if there were or were not guns? It's not like having them not be there are going to stop the insane person from killing others until its happened. It's not the gun that kills people it's the person.
"They're going to attack me either way, so I might as well give them the most deadly weapon in existence to do it with" lol -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 20:32:42
King wrote: So youre talking a perfect world situation? Then hell yes, ban all guns. But in reality thatd be silly
So you're saying ideally there'd be no guns, but since that would be hard to accomplish, fuck it. Lol I just don't understand the logic there, we should work towards the safe, ideal situation and not continue staying in danger for no reason -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 20:34:43
strat1227 wrote: "They're going to attack me either way, so I might as well give them the most deadly weapon in existence to do it with" lol
...Nukes are deadlier -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 20:43:59
spenpinner wrote: ...Nukes are deadlier
Not in a one-on-one situation. I'm not talking about warfare, I'm talking about personal attacks. Good luck trying to kill me with a nuke. -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 20:51:07
You could also kill someone just as easily with any sharp or blunt object on a one on one situation.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 20:52:33
spenpinner wrote: just as easily
You're fooling yourself. -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 21:03:34
spenpinner wrote: You could also kill someone just as easily with any sharp or blunt object on a one on one situation.
lol no... in that case, you actually have to get in contact with them whereas guns you can just shoot them from a short distance -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 21:09:22
Okay, that post was dumb. But the original point i was trying to make was that taking away guns wont stop murders.
-
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 21:22:52
spenpinner wrote: Okay, that post was dumb. But the original point i was trying to make was that taking away guns wont stop murders.
I have no idea where I stand on this, but this right here is correct. Murders did happen to exist before the invention of guns. -
Date: Sat, Jul 21 2012 21:35:11
when i picture texas i picture cowboys with guns but i know thats not completely true and i agree not everyone in texas has guns with them all the time
strat1227 wrote: Lol your'e wrong. I lived in Texas 4 years. Even if the population carrying concealed weapons is *SLIGHTLY* higher than elsewhere, if you think that when a man dressed entirely in tactical combat gear, carrying an assault rifle, gas grenades, a shotgun, and 2 pistols walks into the theater, people do anything but try to escape, you're out of your mind. Nobody, upon seeing that guy, would stand up, pull his little pistol from his holster and try to combat that guy. Your logic is the same as those douchebags who say things like "well if I had been on those 9/11 flights, things would have been different, I would have taken out those terrorists." It's revisionist thinking and it's not accurate
-
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 01:25:15
spenpinner;214453]Okay, that post was dumb. But the original point i was trying to make was that taking away guns wont stop murders.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=MickChickenn wrote: I have no idea where I stand on this, but this right here is correct. Murders did happen to exist before the invention of guns.
Again this is such ridiculous logic. Of course it's true that murders will always happen, but does that mean we shouldn't try to limit them???? Absurd thought processes in here man lol -
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 03:30:02
strat1227 wrote: Again this is such ridiculous logic. Of course it's true that murders will always happen, but does that mean we shouldn't try to limit them???? Absurd thought processes in here man lol
I am just proving the absurd "No Guns = No Murders" logic is flat out wrong. My mom is incredibly Democratic (especially on gun control) and my dad is incredibly Republican (especially on gun control) and my mom is always trying to sway my dad and I to her rediculous full gun control for no murder viewpoint. I disagree, and hate that viewpoint, so I make it a job of mine to post what I did above on every gun control discussion. Also, I have read none of this thread. -
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 04:02:56
strat1227 wrote: So you're saying ideally there'd be no guns, but since that would be hard to accomplish, fuck it. Lol I just don't understand the logic there, we should work towards the safe, ideal situation and not continue staying in danger for no reason
Youre right :\ I think the graph of crime related deaths would go up a little bit, then drop steadily as the years go on. -
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 04:46:18
No Guns = Less Murders End of story.
-
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 05:27:07
True, but there is no way we will keep from people having guns, ever
-
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 06:12:38
no guns thank you very much...im a close-medium range weapon specialist in martial arts so i never really liked guns anyway lol. it puts something wayy to powerful in the hands of people who have no real skill or sense of responsibility.
-
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 06:37:13
the argument whether people should have the right to own guns or not could escalate to saying that countries could also have a right to own nukes. so that's a no for me
-
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 07:19:08
MickChickenn wrote: I am just proving the absurd "No Guns = No Murders" logic is flat out wrong. My mom is incredibly Democratic (especially on gun control) and my dad is incredibly Republican (especially on gun control) and my mom is always trying to sway my dad and I to her rediculous full gun control for no murder viewpoint. I disagree, and hate that viewpoint, so I make it a job of mine to post what I did above on every gun control discussion. Also, I have read none of this thread.
Ok so go argue with your mom, don't come in here making posts against random arguments nobody made. "I have read none of this thread", got it, never going to listen to anything you say in a serious discussion thread again lol -
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 08:16:12
Wobster wrote: No Guns = Less Murders End of story.
i have a feeling people will invent other weapons regardless lol -
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 09:50:18
You do not need a gun for any fucking reason at all. In the UK you can't get one for self defense, it's not a valid reason, so what else are you going to use it for, recreational shooting? Well that's what we hand out licenses for. Also americans stop arguing the second amendment and self defense. It's a really, really stupid idea of "A few people can gets guns illegally, so we'll give EVERYONE the guns LEGALLY", so you make it easier for would-be criminals to get those guns. I've also heard people before argue that it is so you can overthrow your government if enough people do not agree with it. That idea is stupid as well, we are talking about specially trained armed forces against what would basically be terrorists who are simply civilians with guns. It doesn't work. Illegal weapons are also not usually in the best of condition, and won't be as high grade as what you can buy when it comes to you making weapons legal. Illegal weapons will usually constitute of a handgun or a shotgun, not submachine guns and assault rifles of the highest grade that can rip people in half in a rampage. Let's face it, you're giving them the best tools to use to kill as many people as they feel like.
-
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 14:01:19
MickChickenn wrote: I am just proving the absurd "No Guns = No Murders" logic is flat out wrong. My mom is incredibly Democratic (especially on gun control) and my dad is incredibly Republican (especially on gun control) and my mom is always trying to sway my dad and I to her rediculous full gun control for no murder viewpoint. I disagree, and hate that viewpoint, so I make it a job of mine to post what I did above on every gun control discussion.[B] Also, I have read none of this thread[/B].
Thats super weak rhetoric and destroys any credibility you may have built up. You gotta make people think you know what you are talking about to persuade them, a line like that suggests you don't know what we are talking about. -
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 15:51:02
strat1227 wrote: Ok so go argue with your mom, don't come in here making posts against random arguments nobody made. "I have read none of this thread", got it, never going to listen to anything you say in a serious discussion thread again lol
Ohhhhh. IT'S ANGREHHHH!!!!!! -
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 16:10:35
For guns on the count of population control. I don't mind people dying.
-
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 17:23:13
strat1227 wrote: Ok so go argue with your mom, don't come in here making posts against random arguments nobody made. "I have read none of this thread", got it, never going to listen to anything you say in a serious discussion thread again lol
OK strat. Delete my reply post. I see how it is. -
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2012 17:34:18
MickChickenn wrote: OK strat. Delete my reply post. I see how it is.
Read the rules of serious discussion -
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2012 08:12:25
Amendment #2. Nuff said.
-
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2012 14:29:03
juggalo666666 wrote: Amendment #2. Nuff said.
Appeal to authority much? Nice logical fallacy bro -
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2012 16:42:17
No, I don't own guns because the constitution tells me to. I like to shoot as a hobby. Plus who doesn't think it dead sexy looking? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1eOANunCs0&feature=player_embedded pretty good.
-
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2012 17:34:51
Doesn't have anything to do with owning it because of the constitution ... your post essentially said "It should be legal because it's currently legal" which is clearly a dumb argument lol
-
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2012 21:40:10
strat1227 wrote: Doesn't have anything to do with owning it because of the constitution ... your post essentially said "It should be legal because it's currently legal" which is clearly a dumb argument lol
Isn't it more of a rights are good to have, you have a right so you should keep that right. Dumb argument though. -
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2012 21:46:02
Not all rights are good to have. What if the 2nd amendment was that I have the right to punch anyone in the face that I want. Just because it's there doesn't justify its existence
-
Date: Wed, Sep 26 2012 00:20:43
I totally want a bean bag shooter or a tazer, so I could go to my friends house and be like "sup bro" and cause permanent testicular damage wait no