They should take more down its whats killing kids, but only time will tell with what really happens with some changes but something is needed for sure.

At 12/23/12 03:35 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: yes police are allowed but the must do the proper paperwork for the operation then wait to get authorization approval like I said in my reply to Fodders post (which I kept in short reply). I highly doubt that when the UK is allowed hunting rifles and shotguns.

Yeah but you need to go through a lot of paperwork to get those hunting guns, and even then theyre associated with rich people who hunt animals for fun because thats pretty much the only reason why most people who have guns own them except maybe farmers who need to protect their cattle against foxes or something. Most people in the uk have only seen guns on tv or in museums (or somewhere similar).

Also I found this to be very informative
http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearm s-in-britain-8775-in-us.html

At 12/23/12 03:50 PM, Fim wrote: Ideally, I'd love a state where the police never have the need to carry a gun, especially since I believe a lot of the time people who commit crimes are often victims themselves.

Ive only ever seen like 5 policemen with guns before and I live in a city. Its a very rare occurance.

At 12/23/12 04:13 AM, Hack-Back wrote: Also, just a note to those fanatics out there who say that "Guns Kill People!" That is in no shape, form, or way true. I have not gone out walking in the city only to see a floating 9mm handgun floating in the air randomly shooting people in the streets. The person wielding the gun has that power, not the gun itself.

The whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra is fucking insipid. On the same day as the Newtown shootings there was a similar event in China, only the attacker there used a knife. It was still a horrible tragedy, but nobody there died.

Guns are a tool created specifically for the purpose of killing. They facilitate murder: they make it easier, faster, more effective, and more detached. Substantial amounts of research as well as common sense both indicate that where there are guns, there are higher risks of death.

We are all well aware that they are inanimate objects, and this "floating gun" nonsense you're spouting just flippantly trivializes the argument for gun control to avoid actually engaging with it in any meaningful way.

conservatives puking up debunked talking points is always annoying

At 12/24/12 01:16 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: The whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra is fucking insipid. On the same day as the Newtown shootings there was a similar event in China, only the attacker there used a knife. It was still a horrible tragedy, but nobody there died.

Guns are a tool created specifically for the purpose of killing. They facilitate murder: they make it easier, faster, more effective, and more detached. Substantial amounts of research as well as common sense both indicate that where there are guns, there are higher risks of death.

We are all well aware that they are inanimate objects, and this "floating gun" nonsense you're spouting just flippantly trivializes the argument for gun control to avoid actually engaging with it in any meaningful way.

Yeah, its so stupid when people act like guns dont encourage killing. But then again its not as if all gun owners are crazy murdering maniacs. The only other way I could see massacres happening successfuly is with bombs and that would be a lot rarer since you have to know what you are doing.

At 12/24/12 12:21 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

At 12/24/12 01:41 AM, captainlolz wrote: conservatives puking up debunked talking points is always annoying

Liberals do better?

You realise you want liberal gun control right? You just love faction bashing don't you

At 12/24/12 01:41 AM, captainlolz wrote: conservatives puking up debunked talking points is always annoying

yes because the right to arm yourself is so destructive.

At 12/24/12 01:41 AM, captainlolz wrote: conservatives puking up debunked talking points is always annoying

What debunked talking points?

At 12/24/12 03:57 PM, DickBuns wrote: What debunked talking points?

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people," "more guns/concealed carry are the only things that will keep us safe," "if you restrict guns, then only criminals will have them and it'll be more dangerous," "gun control advocates/liberals/Obama want to repeal the Second Amendment and take all guns away," "don't blame the guns, blame mental illness," "don't blame the guns, blame violent media," "don't blame the guns, blame..." etc etc etc...

If they feel comfortable doing this, then let them.

At 12/24/12 05:21 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 12/24/12 03:57 PM, DickBuns wrote: What debunked talking points?

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people," "more guns/concealed carry are the only things that will keep us safe," "if you restrict guns, then only criminals will have them and it'll be more dangerous," "gun control advocates/liberals/Obama want to repeal the Second Amendment and take all guns away," "don't blame the guns, blame mental illness," "don't blame the guns, blame violent media," "don't blame the guns, blame..." etc etc etc...

"don't blame the guns, blame violent media,"
That's not a conservative talking point at all.

If anything
"BLAME GUNS AND VIOLENT MEDIA" is a liberal talking point.
"if you restrict guns, then only criminals will have them and it'll be more dangerous,"
How is this debunked when this is exactly the case in mexico? There is only one legal gunshop in all of mexico that only sells single shot rifles and shotguns and small caliber revolvers to civilians. Look at how many illegal assault rifles are killing the innocent.

Also, the UK violent crime rate shot up and is higher than even the US's after they restricted guns. Gee wonder why.

"gun control advocates/liberals/Obama want to repeal the Second Amendment and take all guns away,"
No one ever stated this in the thread.

"don't blame the guns, blame mental illness,"
Im sorry, could you explain how this has been debunked? Both Adam Lanza and Cho Seung Hui were obviously mentally ill. The latter having been to a hospital several times.

Thanks for showing us how ignorant you are on this subject bud.

At 12/24/12 05:21 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," "more guns/concealed carry are the only things that will keep us safe," "if you restrict guns, then only criminals will have them and it'll be more dangerous," "gun control advocates/liberals/Obama want to repeal the Second Amendment and take all guns away," "don't blame the guns, blame mental illness," "don't blame the guns, blame violent media," "don't blame the guns, blame..." etc etc etc...

People actually believe these things? Guns arent the only reason why people kill other people, but these are still pathetic arguments. Only in america is the appropriate phrase I suppose...

At 12/24/12 05:48 PM, DickBuns wrote: Also, the UK violent crime rate shot up and is higher than even the US's after they restricted guns. Gee wonder why.

lol if youre going to use statistics then atleast use ones that are true. The only reason why the violent crime statistics have ever went up is because the goverment changed the way they were counted which made the statistics quadruple. If youre going to use those statistics as fact then youre just a complete daily mail-tier retard.

Nice job with the dead firemen America.

At 12/24/12 06:10 PM, Gagsy wrote: Nice job with the dead firemen America.

Nice job on the pointless snipe.

At 12/24/12 05:53 PM, BumFodder wrote: The only reason why the violent crime statistics have ever went up is because the goverment changed the way they were counted which made the statistics quadruple.

I'm sure you can back up your statement.

At 12/24/12 05:48 PM, DickBuns wrote: "don't blame the guns, blame violent media,"
That's not a conservative talking point at all.

The idea that media ought to be blamed instead of guns absolutely is. LaPierre explicitly said it in his speech. I'm not trying to make blanket statements about all conservatives here, that would be stupid. I'm pointing out the typical talking points we've seen specifically from hardcore gun advocates, and this is most certainly one of them.

"if you restrict guns, then only criminals will have them and it'll be more dangerous,"
How is this debunked when this is exactly the case in mexico?

You're saying it would be preferable and safer for drug cartels and civilians to be having pitched firefights in the streets all the time?

Whatever, Mexico is a terrible example to use because the government is hampered from properly implementing whatever gun control laws it has for reasons that are almost entirely unique to that country (and that certainly don't apply to America). Virtually every "first-world" nation, where organized crime doesn't constantly overwhelm law enforcement and the government, has stricter gun control laws than the U.S., and substantially lower rates of gun-related homicide.

"gun control advocates/liberals/Obama want to repeal the Second Amendment and take all guns away,"
No one ever stated this in the thread.

Really? Take another look at the third page. And beyond this thread, you can clearly see this kind of all-or-nothing attitude reflected in pro-gun arguments, especially by groups like the NRA.

"don't blame the guns, blame mental illness,"
Im sorry, could you explain how this has been debunked? Both Adam Lanza and Cho Seung Hui were obviously mentally ill. The latter having been to a hospital several times.

Again, it's the idea that we should be focusing on mental illness instead of gun control that pro-control people take issue with. Obviously improving how we deal with mental illness is important in its own right, and would certainly contribute to helping prevent future mass shootings, but by itself it's not nearly enough. Just like with healthy people, the overwhelming majority of mentally ill people are not violent.

Pro-gun people have been disproportionately talking about the mental illness issue to take the focus off guns and avoid talking about our gun problem.

Thanks for showing us how ignorant you are on this subject bud.

Nobody is saying that these things aren't problems, just that it's ridiculous to be saying that they're somehow more significant problems than the actual fucking weapons used to commit the actual fucking murders, and that we shouldn't even consider that something might be wrong there.

At 12/24/12 05:49 PM, BumFodder wrote: People actually believe these things?

Gun manufacturers pay a substantial amount of money to ensure that people do, yeah.

At 12/24/12 07:23 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: The idea that media ought to be blamed instead of guns absolutely is. LaPierre explicitly said it in his speech. I'm not trying to make blanket statements about all conservatives here, that would be stupid. I'm pointing out the typical talking points we've seen specifically from hardcore gun advocates, and this is most certainly one of them.

Did you believe one word that crazy retard said? Shifting the blame from guns and american culture to media that everyone views yet doesnt entice them to kill is incredibly absurd. Everyone knows the difference between reality and fiction, and if they dont theyre probably in an insitution.

At 12/24/12 10:16 PM, BumFodder wrote: Did you believe one word that crazy retard said? Shifting the blame from guns and american culture to media that everyone views yet doesnt entice them to kill is incredibly absurd. Everyone knows the difference between reality and fiction, and if they dont theyre probably in an insitution.

Lapierre had a point. the Media does portray firearms in a negative and misleading style and the fact mental health has been barely brought up by the Left who just say BLAME GUNS when they refuse to go to the core issues that cause it (Poverty, Education, Jobs, ETC) . hell the kids in columbine were bullied and had medication for anger management and depression Seung-Hui Cho was in and out of the hospital and on Prozac. and it with mental issues some people can't tell the difference between reality and fiction its a true fact.

of course blame guns and law abiding gun owners.

At 12/24/12 10:52 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Lapierre had a point. the Media does portray firearms in a negative and misleading style and the fact mental health has been barely brought up by the Left who just say BLAME GUNS when they refuse to go to the core issues that cause it (Poverty, Education, Jobs, ETC) . hell the kids in columbine were bullied and had medication for anger management and depression Seung-Hui Cho was in and out of the hospital and on Prozac. and it with mental issues some people can't tell the difference between reality and fiction its a true fact.

of course blame guns and law abiding gun owners.

People arent refusing to solve the core issues such as poverty, its just that those other causes are a lot harder and more indirect. More gun control would definitely bring shootings down, even just a tiny bit more gun control would. Stop acting as if its ban all guns vs no ban on guns and that people are blaming guns, theyre just trying to tackle one of the core causes that for some reason you seem to have forgotten (people being able to kill other people in seconds at all which happens with guns).

Can you name other ways which make it so easy to cause a massacre? Only ones I can think of is bombing but thats not exactly something you can do en masse with little knowledge; and stabbings, which would be incredibly hard.

At 12/25/12 12:00 AM, RacistBassist wrote: You're right, the tools used is more important than solving underlying issues. That's why no mass shootings happened at all during the AWB, and why no massacres have ever occurred using anything other then guns, and that the highest kill counts for mass killings have all involved guns and not other items.

What other weapons have been used during mass killings then in the USA?

At 12/24/12 10:52 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Lapierre had a point. the Media does portray firearms in a negative and misleading style

Not at all what he was talking about, but way to blindly agree with that nutcase without even listening to what he said. He was talking about violence in media the same way Jack Thompson or parents' groups do. Which makes it pretty ironic when later on in his inane diatribe he goes on to say that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." He actually said within mere minutes of condemning dangerous unrealistic Hollywood fantasies about gun violence. Amazing.

and the fact mental health has been barely brought up by the Left who just say BLAME GUNS when they refuse to go to the core issues that cause it (Poverty, Education, Jobs, ETC) .

Hahaha, okay. All of a sudden the right cares about poverty and education when the alternative is talking about the possibility of losing some of their favorite toys. Look, all of these things are contributing factors, nobody's arguing against that. But it's downright insane to be talking about everything but guns in a discussion about gun violence.

But anyway, how in the hell has mental health "barely been brought up?" It's brought up constantly by both sides. The difference is that pro-control people talk about it in addition to gun control, while anti-control people talk about it exclusively to avoid talking about guns.

At 12/25/12 12:09 AM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 12/25/12 12:03 AM, BumFodder wrote: What other weapons have been used during mass killings then in the USA?

A DIY flamethrower that was thrown together and it either had one more or one less fatality compared to Columbine, numerous explosives (Columbine would have been a lot worse had they spent more time dedicated to making their explosives work and not misfire, not to mention the deadliest mass killing (Including number of school children) used explosives, alongside the deadliest school massacre)

Thats not very many massacres compared to guns. Plus they were far harder to put together, judging from how little thought some of these gun shooters have put into their shootings Im pretty sure very few of them would have gone to the trouble of making explosives and flamethrowers without killing themselves.

At 12/25/12 12:00 AM, RacistBassist wrote: I agree with him in that regard. The media stops glorifying these fuckers and one of their motivations goes bye bye. There's no record for these scum to aim for. Nobody learns what the fuck it is their message was.

Yeah, I agree with this too, but that's not what LaPierre was talking about. He was talking about the prevalence of violence in video games and movies and whatnot, same old paranoid PTA shit that's been all but debunked by the research.

Pitched firefights? That's a hell of a lot better instead of one of the groups being able to effortlessly gun down entire groups of police like has happened before.

As much as I would like to live in your cowboy fantasy land, here in the real world more bullets flying equals more collateral damage.

What is with the focus on gun related homicide and not overall homicide when talking about these bans?

Gee I dunno, maybe because we're arguing about fucking gun control and how to go about preventing more mass shootings?

Give an inch, and a mile is taken.

That's exactly the bullshit extreme rhetoric I'm talking about. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the government would ever remove the right to bear arms entirely, but the NRA positions everything that way to justify fighting against every single little regulation.

People have numerously called for the bannings of semi-automatics, anything remotely military related, or anything that can hold high cap mags (That goes for basically 100% of all magazine fed weapons.)

Please explain to me why a private citizen needs any of those things.

And like the majority of guns, they have absolutely no involvement in the propagation of crime or mass shootings.

Maybe not, but they are specifically created to be used as tools of killing. And you can't seriously be equating regulating the sale of inanimate objects with adequately dealing with the incredibly complex psychological issues of actual human beings.

And again, here you are pushing the argument into ridiculous either-or territory. See below.

Gun problem? We have 88 guns for every 100 people just about, yet we don't have a proportionally high amount of homicides+accidental gun deaths (I absolutely do not care for things like suicide) compared to countries with a lower per capita guns in circulation count.

What you're saying here is patently false. And while we're at it, where there are more guns, there tends to be more homicide.

You're right, the tools used is more important than solving underlying issues.

It's not like we have to choose between mental health reform and gun control. We can do both at the same time, and work on other issues too. In fact that's exactly what we're trying to do. And just because increased gun control won't stop all murder, or even all gun-related murder, doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile pursuit. This whole all-or-nothing false dichotomy is utter nonsense that pro-gun types spout to avoid actually dealing with the issue at hand.

All of a sudden only the right thinks Americans should have their basic rights, and that the conversation is about gun violence and not preventing school massacres.

Denying a relation between preventing school massacres and preventing gun violence requires a superhuman level of mental gymnastics that no sane person could possibly hope or want to achieve.

A DIY flamethrower that was thrown together

Oh hey wait a minute guys there was this one time that a different weapon was used so I guess we should just completely ignore all the other school shootings because talking about regulating guns makes some people a little upset.