At 12/18/12 11:13 PM, JaY11 wrote:
How do you think crimes actually happen in reality? Do you think someone who is planning on actually murdering or robbing someone loudly announces that they are approaching with a weapon, giving our heroic elderly person a chance to withdraw and aim his gun? And adding a second deadly weapon into the scenario makes the situation better?
Yet here we are, with justifiable homicide still existing through self defense, with the majority involving firearms. Not to mention the actual deterrent of the person merely brandishing the weapon. Or just injuring the person. It exists. People just don't give a fuck about the story where guy breaks in, gets shot, goes to jail. The end. Now, if it was guy breaks in, kills homeowner, gets away/caught, you can be guaranteed that shit is all over the local news.
and yeah crimes with weapons that aren't guns are totally on the same level
Shit, what was the deadliest school killing in the US again?
One of my "favorites" (God I hate putting it like this) was the one where the guy decided to just take a DIY flamethrower and killed a dozen or so people before he decided to leg it and was eventually apprehended.
THANK YOU GUNS
RIght, because deaths magically disappear when guns go away. Yes, massacres are harder to have occur, except oddly, it seems to be only a rather recent phenomenon to have be common place, after virtually anyone could just go and buy one of those super scary fully automatic weapons.
At 12/18/12 11:14 PM, Xenomit wrote:
I'm getting this for myself come christmas day
I'm thinking about getting a CMMG AR-15, some shitty AK knockoff, and a .22 in the next few months.
At 12/18/12 11:09 PM, BumFodder wrote:
Thats a pretty sensationalist and interesting take on things. I know the USA has a higher crime rate but its hardly anything absurd. I know people take self-protection more seriously over there and thats fine, but I dont really like "what if x was under attack and needed a gun" kind of arguments because theyre completely hypothetical with lots of variables and you can keep asking different ones variants over and over and it doesnt get anyone anywhere.
No, it is not a little bit sensationalist. That's why crime still occurs in these places where guns are taken away. These situations are not hypothetical, they happen daily. They just don't get reported because death sells. Did you hear about the attempted movie this week that was stopped (And yes, he was just shooting people at random) by an off duty officer who gunned the fucker down? Probably not, because when these crimes are stopped, nobody is there to load up body bags. The reason people are able to say "When has a massacre ever been stopped by somebody with a gun?" is because they are stopped before they become massacres. Look at violent crime rates of any country, anywhere. Gun control. No gun control. Look at places crime rates before and after the ban.
I dont know why you are bringing those kind of people up because theyve got nothing to do with what I said. In fact using a semi-auto is more deadly because aimed shots would be more deadly than random spray. But still full auto is more likely to cause accidents but I dont know if there are any figures that compare those two anywhere anyway.
I am bringing this up in response to your not being a sociologist comment. It is the people who are using their gut reaction and their preconceived misconceptions to try to justify the outlawing of firearms.
Im not going on about banning them why are you mentioning that constantly.
Because this is one of those topics where it is a very slippery slope. Except for background checks at 100% of all purchases, and the extremely uncostly mental health screenings, there is simply no real solution to the problem that does not being the teetering on the edge of this slope.