Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Weird coincidence that the country drowning in guns has a lot of awful mass shootings.

  Weird coincidence that a country drowning in knives has a high knife attack rate.

 

  Evil people will continue to do evil things no matter what you take away from them.  

 

  What have I done wrong to have my guns taken or restricted from me?  Nothing.  I have used my guns only for good and will continue to do so.

 

 Secure the schools and these type's of actions will stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

  Weird coincidence that a country drowning in knives has a high knife attack rate.

 

  Evil people will continue to do evil things no matter what you take away from them.  

 

  What have I done wrong to have my guns taken or restricted from me?  Nothing.  I have used my guns only for good and will continue to do so.

 

 Secure the schools and these type's of actions will stop.

Much easier for a single deranged individual to massacre dozens of people with a gun than a knife, and you know that. I sure hope you know that.


Right. We should 'secure the school'. Remember Fort Hood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Much easier for a single deranged individual to massacre dozens of people with a gun than a knife, and you know that. I sure hope you know that.


Right. We should 'secure the school'. Remember Fort Hood?

  It may be easier to massacre dozens with a gun than a knife, but it still happens with a knife.  I do know that but to subjugate the entire population for the actions of a few is preposterous and wrong.  The actions of others do not reflect the actions of the many.  

 

  On the Fort Hood shooting,

       Before that shooting it was easy to bring your firearms onto a base without registering them.Soldiers who live on post must let their immediate commanders know if they have a personal firearm. All losses — or possible losses — must be reported within two hours. No concealed weapons are allowed, even with a state or county permit, and the shooter did not live on base.  Now after the shooting you must register your firearms when you enter the base.  But that is a major base, not a school.  A base is basically a city and not a building or a few buildings, and a building or a few buildings are easier to secure than a MAJOR U.S. military installation that covers 339 sq miles unlike a school that will never come close to that size.  

 

  You cannot compare a school to a U.S. Military installation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

  It may be easier to massacre dozens with a gun than a knife, but it still happens with a knife.  I do know that but to subjugate the entire population for the actions of a few is preposterous and wrong.  The actions of others do not reflect the actions of the many.  

 

  On the Fort Hood shooting,

       Before that shooting it was easy to bring your firearms onto a base without registering them.Soldiers who live on post must let their immediate commanders know if they have a personal firearm. All losses — or possible losses — must be reported within two hours. No concealed weapons are allowed, even with a state or county permit, and the shooter did not live on base.  Now after the shooting you must register your firearms when you enter the base.  But that is a major base, not a school.  A base is basically a city and not a building or a few buildings, and a building or a few buildings are easier to secure than a MAJOR U.S. military installation that covers 339 sq miles unlike a school that will never come close to that size.  

  

  You cannot compare a school to a U.S. Military installation.

I've never advocated for taking away guns from people like you, if you are truly as mentally fit and law abiding as you claim to be.

 

Metal detectors don't stop bad guys with guns. And as parkland and many other shootings proved, even good guys with guns often times can't stop bad guys with guns. Just as a random example, Chris Kyle was a decorated, high skilled, and armed Navy SEAL, and was executed because he had his back turned for a moment. Armed guards at schools is not good enough if you're serious about protecting children in this country.

Edited by Riley24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

I've never advocated for taking away guns from people like you, if you are truly as mentally fit and law abiding as you claim to be.

 

Metal detectors don't stop bad guys with guns. And as parkland and many other shootings proved, even good guys with guns often times can't stop bad guys with guns. Just as a random example, Chris Kyle was a decorated, high skilled, and armed Navy SEAL, and was executed because he had his back turned for a moment. Armed guards at schools is not good enough if you're serious about protecting children in this country.

  Parkland had major flaws in that school and is a poor example for anything.   As I stated prior, if anyone will listen, you allow 1 way in and 1 way out unless there is an emergency. At the only entrance and exit (which is 1 door) you have armed officer's and metal detectors at the door.  If ANYONE wants to try and attack anyone then they must fight their way into that school.  

 

  As I stated before.  Go to a courthouse and see what you must do to get in.  That is what should be done at these school's.  Stop letting anyone and their brother into the school's without being checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

  Parkland had major flaws in that school and is a poor example for anything.   As I stated prior, if anyone will listen, you allow 1 way in and 1 way out unless there is an emergency. At the only entrance and exit (which is 1 door) you have armed officer's and metal detectors at the door.  If ANYONE wants to try and attack anyone then they must fight their way into that school.  

 

  As I stated before.  Go to a courthouse and see what you must do to get in.  That is what should be done at these school's.  Stop letting anyone and their brother into the school's without being checked.

Wow, you play too many video game my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Wow, you play too many video game my friend.

No I do not, I am serious, start to guard the school's.  Every school I went to was like this, they guarded the school's from people that wanted to do harm to us.  It is a far better starting point than waiting for some politicians to bicker and do nothing.  None of you have any answers exept to make a new law that will do nothing to stop people from doing horrid act's of violence.  

 

  If enacting these new law's would work then start stripping every government facility of security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Weird coincidence that the country drowning in guns has a lot of awful mass shootings.

I encourage you to view some older topics, your argument has been disproven several times already. 

4 hours ago, ToeBius said:

No I do not, I am serious, start to guard the school's.  Every school I went to was like this, they guarded the school's from people that wanted to do harm to us.  It is a far better starting point than waiting for some politicians to bicker and do nothing.  None of you have any answers exept to make a new law that will do nothing to stop people from doing horrid act's of violence.  

 

  If enacting these new law's would work then start stripping every government facility of security.

People believe that the government has a duty to protect them, when the same government has declared that law enforcement don’t have a constitutional obligation to keep citizens safe from criminals. lol


It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I understand your trail of thoughts, to make schools a safe haven for kids. That's a good thing to want them to be protected. But kids don't spend their lives in a school. They go out. Personally I've been bullied in high school, and the dudes bullying me were always outside the school, some of them weren't even students. Even if my school had been a real fortress like you're suggesting it should be, it wouldn't have protected me from them (not even gonna mention standing up to them as they were more than one, and dipping into some drug dealing shit, aka not afraid to break your bones if you pissed them off).

 

Protecting schools and turning them into prison-like facilities will increase the kids safety inside. But you're disregarding the whole outside world. So what then, do we place one guard at every street corner to make sure kids don't get bullied or assaulted there too? Do we turn every street of every city into some kind of 1984 remake (yeah yeah standing up to the bullies and helping the ones who can't, you said violence was part of humanity, I say selfishness is equally part of humanity and people will always value their own issues before others)? Or do we actually adress the issue of people with mental issues having access to firearms which, not only would protect kids in school, but also out of school, and everywhere else for everyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I encourage you to view some older topics, your argument has been disproven several times already. 

And yours hasn't? Your argument that more guns will lessen gun violence gets disproven every year.

 

I'm open to new ideas. But if more guns was the answer to gun violence, we'd be living in the safest country on earth, and not the 103rd safest. Honestly, what would it take for you to realize you are wrong? Ever stop and think, maybe every other first world country figured this out already?

Edited by Riley24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

And yours hasn't? Your argument that more guns will lessen gun violence gets disproven every year.

 

I'm open to new ideas. But if more guns was the answer to gun violence, we'd be living in the safest country on earth, and not the 103rd safest. Honestly, what would it take for you to realize you are wrong? Ever stop and think, maybe every other first world country figured this out already?

No, that's not my argument. My argument is that more responsible gun owners will reduce the chances of violence. I don't recall anyone ever saying that throwing more guns into the mix will fix the problem, but alright homie. 

 

The problem is that I'm not wrong, I'm right. Most political debates today are based solely on opinion and perspective. This is not one of them. The facts and the rest of the US are against you, you are the minority view. At least you've got some misguided and uninformed high schoolers on your side though. Hitler did say those that control the youth control the future.

Edited by TheDivineHustle

It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

No, that's not my argument. My argument is that more responsible gun owners will reduce the chances of violence. I don't recall anyone ever saying that throwing more guns into the mix will fix the problem, but alright homie. 

So do you support rigorous background checks, registration, and waiting periods? Or do you think getting more guns into the hands of the good guys will happen by the honor system?

 

21 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

The problem is that I'm not wrong, I'm right. Most political debates today are based solely on opinion and perspective. This is not one of them. The facts and the rest of the US are against you, you are the minority view. At least you've got some misguided and uninformed high schoolers on your side though. Hitler did say those that control the youth control the future.

And you have uneducated hicks on your side. And you're wrong again: the majority of Americans do not own a gun, and support gun control by a substantial margin: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-support-gun-control-hits-record-high-n849686

 

YOU are in the minority, no matter what fox new tells you. You live in a fantasy world my friend. And those 'misguided and uninformed high schoolers' certainly seem more eloquent and informed than most Trump voters.

 

Give me sources for your claims, or don't bother responding. I won't entertain your fantasies unless you provide proof for your arguments from this point on. And unless you're 14 years old, not responding on an internet forum doesn't mean you 'lost the argument'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

 

Give me sources for your claims, or don't bother responding. I won't entertain your fantasies unless you provide proof for your arguments from this point on. And unless you're 14 years old, not responding on an internet forum doesn't mean you 'lost the argument'.

 

Not responding to a debate generally means that you've inherently lost. It's not coincidental that you and the others decide to just stop responding at the same point in every gun debate we've ever had. When the numbers and the facts come out, you disappear. When other users come out and call your statements and arguments as fallacies with inconsistencies, we stop receiving responses from you guys. It happens every time man.

 

As for your desired sources, I encourage you to ruffle around inside of this because I've posted them all over:

 

Quote

So do you support rigorous background checks, registration, and waiting periods? 

 

Yes, and so do a vast majority of Americans.

Quote

And you have uneducated hicks on your side. And you're wrong again: the majority of Americans do not own a gun, and support gun control by a substantial margin: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-support-gun-control-hits-record-high-n849686

I don't ever recall saying that a majority of Americans own guns. What I have said in the past is that a majority of gun owners are well-educated on their weapons, a majority of gun owners are Republicans, and a majority of Republicans keep guns in their homes and don't support any sort of ban or harsh restriction on guns.

Quote

YOU are in the minority, no matter what fox new tells you. You live in a fantasy world my friend. And those 'misguided and uninformed high schoolers' certainly seem more eloquent and informed than most Trump voters.

This is the problem with the US. Since I disagree with your opinion, I'm suddenly some hardcore Fox News watching right-wing conservative. I didn't even vote for Trump, so I have no idea what you're talking about on that note.

 

And no, I'm not. Most Americans support "common sense" gun control, which you've listed above. Most Americans do not support anything further than that, according to Gallup's polling.

 

 


It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Not responding to a debate generally means that you've inherently lost. It's not coincidental that you and the others decide to just stop responding at the same point in every gun debate we've ever had. When the numbers and the facts come out, you disappear. When other users come out and call your statements and arguments as fallacies with inconsistencies, we stop receiving responses from you guys. It happens every time man.

 

As for your desired sources, I encourage you to ruffle around inside of this because I've posted them all over:

 

I'm an adult, I only go to forums in the rare occurrence when I don't have better things to do. As soon as your responses bore me, I stop responding. I tend to stop responding when pro-gun people get emotional about their freedoms, choose to ignore facts from credible sources, or boringly state 'The second amendment. End of discussion.'

 

35 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Yes, and so do a vast majority of Americans.

So you support gun control, and we're largely in agreement. I support banning bump stocks and assault weapons (which have a legal definition, you can look it up). I know I probably loose you there, but frankly I don't really care. Ammosexuals (not saying YOU are one) are too in love with their sexy black rifles. Instagram is full of tacticool weekend operators. Those guys aren't the guys I'm worried about. Sure, they might blow their wife's head off during a drunken argument, but if we're talking about mass shootings, they don't fit the profile. I'm worried about the amateur enthusiast who bought an AR-15 to stick it to the liberals, and his mentally deranged high school kid who has access to it. I just don't believe pro-gun people when they claim they want an AR-15 for improved effectiveness in home defense, and I don't believe them when they say they're stock piling to defend against tyranny. I'm a knife guy, building a small collection. I use and carry them for work, but I get the appeal of collecting and modifying guns. But I want the safety of the public, and our police officers to be a higher priority than the specific freedoms of owning certain kinds of weapons, and the ways we allow them to be sold in the first place.

 

54 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I don't ever recall saying that a majority of Americans own guns. What I have said in the past is that a majority of gun owners are well-educated on their weapons, a majority of gun owners are Republicans, and a majority of Republicans keep guns in their homes and don't support any sort of ban or harsh restriction on guns.

This is the problem with the US. Since I disagree with your opinion, I'm suddenly some hardcore Fox News watching right-wing conservative. I didn't even vote for Trump, so I have no idea what you're talking about on that note.

I never said that you said the majority of Americans own guns. YOU claimed to be in the majority of Americans who were pro-gun, I informed you that you were incorrect in a number of ways. And if you spout the exact talking points expressed on the largest right wing media organization, I'm going to assume that you get your news there. And I never claimed that you voted for Trump. You were condescending and dickish about teenage survivors of a massacre, so I included a jab about the absolute morons who are on YOUR side.

 

58 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

And no, I'm not. Most Americans support "common sense" gun control, which you've listed above. Most Americans do not support anything further than that, according to Gallup's polling.

Majority of Americans support assault weapons ban, majority of Americans support bump stock ban. What is and isn't common sense is a matter of opinion. I think it is common sense to ban assault weapons and devices that allow for a loophole in laws regarding automatic weapons, and evidently, so do the majority of Americans.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/355376-poll-82-support-a-ban-on-bump-stocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hystery said:

I mean, I understand your trail of thoughts, to make schools a safe haven for kids. That's a good thing to want them to be protected. But kids don't spend their lives in a school. They go out. Personally I've been bullied in high school, and the dudes bullying me were always outside the school, some of them weren't even students. Even if my school had been a real fortress like you're suggesting it should be, it wouldn't have protected me from them (not even gonna mention standing up to them as they were more than one, and dipping into some drug dealing shit, aka not afraid to break your bones if you pissed them off).

 

Protecting schools and turning them into prison-like facilities will increase the kids safety inside. But you're disregarding the whole outside world. So what then, do we place one guard at every street corner to make sure kids don't get bullied or assaulted there too? Do we turn every street of every city into some kind of 1984 remake (yeah yeah standing up to the bullies and helping the ones who can't, you said violence was part of humanity, I say selfishness is equally part of humanity and people will always value their own issues before others)? Or do we actually adress the issue of people with mental issues having access to firearms which, not only would protect kids in school, but also out of school, and everywhere else for everyone else?

  I know that kid's do not spend yheir lives in school, I never said that they do.  There is obviously an issue with people wanting to shoot up a school to make a name for them selves and to have there story told.

 

  I am just asking for people to start protecting kid's by actually protecting them and not by trying to figure out how to understand the human psyche first.  You can do alot by just locking down door's, putting in metal detectors, and adding armed, trained guards.  You cant control people everywhere and the idea that making a new law that addresses mental illness will somehow stop bullies and criminals from doing horrid act's.  

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

So you support gun control, and we're largely in agreement. I support banning bump stocks and assault weapons (which have a legal definition, you can look it up). I know I probably loose you there, but frankly I don't really care. Ammosexuals (not saying YOU are one) are too in love with their sexy black rifles. Instagram is full of tacticool weekend operators. Those guys aren't the guys I'm worried about. Sure, they might blow their wife's head off during a drunken argument, but if we're talking about mass shootings, they don't fit the profile. I'm worried about the amateur enthusiast who bought an AR-15 to stick it to the liberals, and his mentally deranged high school kid who has access to it. I just don't believe pro-gun people when they claim they want an AR-15 for improved effectiveness in home defense, and I don't believe them when they say they're stock piling to defend against tyranny. I'm a knife guy, building a small collection. I use and carry them for work, but I get the appeal of collecting and modifying guns. But I

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

But I want the safety of the public, and our police officers to be a higher priority than the specific freedoms of owning certain kinds of weapons, and the ways we allow them to be sold in the first place.

 

  I will first off say that I do not support any sort of gun control and I will also say that banning guns in any form does absolutely nothing to stop crime.  You can try to say gun crime all you want but it is only crime and crimes are commited with knives more than they are with guns so let's talk about common sense knife control?

  An assault weapon is anything that can be picked up, and used as a weapon.  You can turn anything into an assault weapon.

  In 2015, the 252 people were killed with rifles (that is all rifles not just the AR15), 269 with shotguns (we should ban them since they killed more? And 6,447 with handguns (wow the statistics are not adding up in your favor with these black assault rifles).  I have used an AR15 in civilian life to save the life of another, that in it's self is a reason to own one. 

 

  There is no law that would of stopped these shootings unless you call for all out confiscation.  In Sandy Hook the shooter killed his mother, took the guns and killed the kid's.  A background check would of not stopped that.

 

  In San Bernardino, the shooters purchased the ar15 from a friend illegally, no law stopped that.

 

  In Parkland, the shooter should of not had a gun with the laws that are on the book's and yet the Government you want to enact and enforce these law's failed to follow and prosecute these law's.

 

  In the recent Texas shooting, the gunman took his father's guns and commited these crimes.  What restriction, background check, or waiting period would have made a difference? 

 

  The one sole reason for the Second amendment is to allow the citizens to be able to stand up and fight against a tyrannical government just like they did in the American Revolution, Athens Tennessee, Bundy Ranch, and any other tyrannical act the goverment wishes to be forced upon us.  

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

But I want the safety of the public, and our police officers to be a higher priority than the specific freedoms of owning certain kinds of weapons, and the ways we allow them to be sold in the first place.

  So I should be barred from owning an AR15 or AK47 type rifle because it may somehow make a law enforcement officer safer if I, the law abiding citizen, choose to subjugate myself to the power of the state?  These freedoms should not be played with like that, to enslave yourself because you somehow think that it will make other's safer is scary.

 

  Self preservation should be your highest priority and not you least priority.

 

  I am passionate about this subject because my family was rounded up and enslaved by the Russians in WW2 for having German descent even though they had been in Russia for 200 year's and swore loyalty to Russia.  Only 3 of my family members survived and that is why my name is known today.

 

  My fiancee's family's country was occupied by the Germans during WW2 and were later rounded up and exicuted by Ukrainian soldiers while her grandmother was able to excape and hide.  Her grandmother ended up growing up in an orphanage until she was able to make it to the U.S. and away from fascist's.

 

  Weapons, including guns and AR15's, are the point of the sword for your freedom and your voice.  The founding father's of the U.S. agreed to put these in place to make sure that it is the Government who answer to the people and not the people who answer to the government.  When you trust your government only the worst will happen. 

 

  Your safety and security starts with you and only you.

 

  And a majority of American's do NOT support gun control or "common sense" gun control because ther is no such thing.

 

  You can poll all you want but those poll's are lies.  You bashed TheDevineHustle claiming he was a stupid Fox news guy and you come back with a leftist news channel to support your wild claims. WTF?

Edited by ToeBius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

  I know that kid's do not spend yheir lives in school, I never said that they do.  There is obviously an issue with people wanting to shoot up a school to make a name for them selves and to have there story told.

 

  I am just asking for people to start protecting kid's by actually protecting them and not by trying to figure out how to understand the human psyche first.  You can do alot by just locking down door's, putting in metal detectors, and adding armed, trained guards.  You cant control people everywhere and the idea that making a new law that addresses mental illness will somehow stop bullies and criminals from doing horrid act's.  

 

You're just focusing on one part of the problem. It's an issue that lies in two factors: 1/ the bullying in school, either 'normal' bullying as in one or more people harassing someone, or the more 'insidious' bullying of casting a student away for whatever reason and making them a marginal, and 2/ the easy access to firearms for people with mental issues. You're proposing to solve neither of those. Instead, you propose to prevent shootings from happening by putting guards and metal detectors, etc. That won't stop the bullied people to deal with that shit, nor will it stop people with rampage mental disorders to grab a gun and go for it. I'm talking about preemptively preventing the situation from happening. First, by making bullying situations to be dealt with more severely to reduce the amount of bullying in school. Maybe make it able for people to charge someone for bullying, that'd surely be a deterrent. And second, to prevent people with mental issues to have acces to firearms through a psychological background check. You do those two, and schools won't have to be turned into prison-like facilities, they'll remain an open space for students to just come and go as they will. Freedom, like you like to call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

You're just focusing on one part of the problem. It's an issue that lies in two factors: 1/ the bullying in school, either 'normal' bullying as in one or more people harassing someone, or the more 'insidious' bullying of casting a student away for whatever reason and making them a marginal, and 2/ the easy access to firearms for people with mental issues. You're proposing to solve neither of those. Instead, you propose to prevent shootings from happening by putting guards and metal detectors, etc. That won't stop the bullied people to deal with that shit, nor will it stop people with rampage mental disorders to grab a gun and go for it. I'm talking about preemptively preventing the situation from happening. First, by making bullying situations to be dealt with more severely to reduce the amount of bullying in school. Maybe make it able for people to charge someone for bullying, that'd surely be a deterrent. And second, to prevent people with mental issues to have acces to firearms through a psychological background check. You do those two, and schools won't have to be turned into prison-like facilities, they'll remain an open space for students to just come and go as they will. Freedom, like you like to call it.

  I am proposing to protect the school's the same was we protect every other government facility in the U.S.  And to think that you will solve the bullying issue with tougher punishments will do nothing to stop it.  Bullying is a power and control issue, they do it because you allow them to and you wont fight back, and the people you tell to help will do nothing to stop him and that feeds into his power.  And you are continuing to forget the part of illegally acquiring firearms by these shooters.  As stated before, alot of these shooters stole there firearms or were already barred from owning them.

 

  Who do you suggest be the one's that assest the individuals that want a gun?  How will you ensure that they will not put there political beliefs before anything when they evaluate people?  How will this not be corrupt? 

 

  I am talking about securing school's, which seems to be far too totalitarian, but redistricting my access to self defence tends to follow along the lines of common sense?

 

    Common sense is something that everyone agrees with, not what a small minority agree on. And yes these people calling for these measures are a small minority.  Most American's just want to be left to live and let live without other's trying to control their lives 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  I will first off say that I do not support any sort of gun control and I will also say that banning guns in any form does absolutely nothing to stop crime.  You can try to say gun crime all you want but it is only crime and crimes are commited with knives more than they are with guns so let's talk about common sense knife control?

 

Guns are not knives. They are, and should be regulated differently. You're deflecting.

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  An assault weapon is anything that can be picked up, and used as a weapon.  You can turn anything into an assault weapon.

Incorrect. There is a legal definition for assault weapons: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/09/what_is_an_assault_weapon.html

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  In 2015, the 252 people were killed with rifles (that is all rifles not just the AR15), 269 with shotguns (we should ban them since they killed more? And 6,447 with handguns (wow the statistics are not adding up in your favor with these black assault rifles).  I have used an AR15 in civilian life to save the life of another, that in it's self is a reason to own one. 

  

I never claimed that assault weapons made up for the majority of gun homicides. And come back when you have a smarter argument than 'only a few hundred people are murdered every year'. And I don't believe you about your hero story, sorry. It's the internet, you can't expect anyone to believe you.

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  There is no law that would of stopped these shootings unless you call for all out confiscation.  In Sandy Hook the shooter killed his mother, took the guns and killed the kid's.  A background check would of not stopped that.

His mother definitely didn't need an AR-15, especially not in a town with virtually no violent crime. And she definitely didn't need it outside of a safe, where anyone could get to it, including her deranged son. Other countries have laws regarding the storage of firearms, and inspections to enforce them. When the second amendment was written, the militia would do inspections of their members homes to ensure their weapons were stored correctly and up to code. Just a thought.

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  In Parkland, the shooter should of not had a gun with the laws that are on the book's and yet the Government you want to enact and enforce these law's failed to follow and prosecute these law's.

 

That sentence made no sense, dude.

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  In the recent Texas shooting, the gunman took his father's guns and commited these crimes.  What restriction, background check, or waiting period would have made a difference? 

Definitely an argument for reducing the number of guns in circulation. We need less people's dads to have guns. Some of that change needs to happen culturally, I understand. 

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  The one sole reason for the Second amendment is to allow the citizens to be able to stand up and fight against a tyrannical government just like they did in the American Revolution, Athens Tennessee, Bundy Ranch, and any other tyrannical act the goverment wishes to be forced upon us.  

Are you pro-Bundy? Oh god....

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  So I should be barred from owning an AR15 or AK47 type rifle because it may somehow make a law enforcement officer safer if I, the law abiding citizen, choose to subjugate myself to the power of the state? 

Yup. I believe so. 


"Why should I get a speeding ticket? I didn't crash!"

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  Self preservation should be your highest priority and not you least priority.

Love it when people drop macho one-liners but misspell a word. And yes, I believe in self-preservation. That's why I want less guns near me. Call me a liberal snob, but I believe there's a more nuanced and complex solution to gun violence than 'shootin back'.

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  I am passionate about this subject because my family was rounded up and enslaved by the Russians in WW2 for having German descent even though they had been in Russia for 200 year's and swore loyalty to Russia.  Only 3 of my family members survived and that is why my name is known today.

That's a sad story. I'm sure that's made you quite the advocate for civil liberties, especially Hispanic immigrants and Muslim-Americans. You would probably advocate for arming those groups of people, right? 

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  In Parkland, the shooter should of not had a gun with the laws that are on the book's and yet the Government you want to enact and enforce these law's failed to follow and prosecute these law's.

When in the last 50 years have guns been used to defend freedom? Black Panthers? I'm genuinely asking.

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  Your safety and security starts with you and only you.

If we introduced 80 million guns to Canada, would individual Canadians be safer?

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

   And a majority of American's do NOT support gun control or "common sense" gun control because ther is no such thing.

  

  You can poll all you want but those poll's are lies.  You bashed TheDevineHustle claiming he was a stupid Fox news guy and you come back with a leftist news channel to support your wild claims. WTF?

You're literally wrong. Don't like NBC? Here's a Fox News article reporting the same exact thing (their website is a bit more factual than their TV program):

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/25/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-gun-measures-doubt-congress-will-act.html

 

'those polls are lies' - you definitely know how to receive new information. I'm honestly just warning you, claiming that credible polling agencies are 'lying' makes you sound unhinged.

 

Edited by Riley24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Riley24 said:

So you support gun control, and we're largely in agreement. I support banning bump stocks and assault weapons (which have a legal definition, you can look it up). I know I probably loose you there, but frankly I don't really care. Ammosexuals (not saying YOU are one) are too in love with their sexy black rifles. Instagram is full of tacticool weekend operators. Those guys aren't the guys I'm worried about. Sure, they might blow their wife's head off during a drunken argument, but if we're talking about mass shootings, they don't fit the profile. I'm worried about the amateur enthusiast who bought an AR-15 to stick it to the liberals, and his mentally deranged high school kid who has access to it. 

 

 

 

3

The weapon should be secured, a teenage high school kid shouldn't be able to go grab his/her parents weapon in a snap. That's an irresponsible gun-owner, in which the NRA and the right-wingers are against.

Quote

I'm an adult, I only go to forums in the rare occurrence when I don't have better things to do. As soon as your responses bore me, I stop responding. I tend to stop responding when pro-gun people get emotional about their freedoms, choose to ignore facts from credible sources, or boringly state 'The second amendment. End of discussion.'

Most of us are also adults. The entire purpose of a debate is to put conflicting ideas onto the table and decide on which would be more efficient and effective to enact. If you aren't going to fully support your stance and just leave mid-debate, then why participate, to begin with? Seems like a wasted effort on your part to half-ass an argument and then dip, leaving your opponents even more firmly against your argument since you left unnoticed. You either formally exit the discussion, or you agree to disagree. That's how you keep your opponents from finding your opinions comical. I respect your opinion and I always have, but for someone else, it'd be easy for them to not respect it if you just leave without saying anything repeatedly.

Quote

I just don't believe pro-gun people when they claim they want an AR-15 for improved effectiveness in home defense, and I don't believe them when they say they're stock piling to defend against tyranny. I'm a knife guy, building a small collection. I use and carry them for work, but I get the appeal of collecting and modifying guns. But I want the safety of the public, and our police officers to be a higher priority than the specific freedoms of owning certain kinds of weapons, and the ways we allow them to be sold in the first place.

1

Why someone needs any type of weapon isn't really of anyone else's concern but that person. Also, you can ask the Police. A vast majority of them are even in favor of concealed carry because they believe that it will help reduce shootings against Police and save the lives of officers. They're the people most likely to deal with gun violence on a daily basis, yet they somehow overwhelmingly support gun ownership. Hmm, interesting.

Quote

I never said that you said the majority of Americans own guns. YOU claimed to be in the majority of Americans who were pro-gun, I informed you that you were incorrect in a number of ways. And if you spout the exact talking points expressed on the largest right wing media organization, I'm going to assume that you get your news there. And I never claimed that you voted for Trump. You were condescending and dickish about teenage survivors of a massacre, so I included a jab about the absolute morons who are on YOUR side.

1

"My side", I'm not on any side in this asinine political war that we've got going on in the US. I'm on the side of freedom, liberty, and the constitution being upheld and protected from people that wish to desecrate, disobey, and disrespect it. Don't associate me with the nuts on the right side of the spectrum. Just because those teenagers survived a terrible massacre doesn't mean that they're now ready to make decisions on behalf of the entire country in regards to our gun laws. They're as ignorant now as they were before the massacre, probably even more so.

Quote

 

Majority of Americans support assault weapons ban, majority of Americans support bump stock ban. What is and isn't common sense is a matter of opinion. I think it is common sense to ban assault weapons and devices that allow for a loophole in laws regarding automatic weapons, and evidently, so do the majority of Americans.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/355376-poll-82-support-a-ban-on-bump-stocks

 

Yes, a majority of Americans are against the complete banning of any type of weapon, including weapons that very uneducated people like to call "assault rifles". Assault weapons were banned in 1986, what you're asking for is a ban on semi-automatic sporting firearms. People should really know what exactly they're talking about before they try to make laws regarding them. I think that's part of the problem with this country as a whole. I'd also like to remind you of the 10-year ban signed into law by former President Clinton, and I'd like you to compare the deaths from before to after. Because no, the beloved ban that you and a handful of other Americans want didn't and wouldn't work. The facts are not in your favor, as elaborated on in the first spoiler.

512px-Total_US_deaths_by_year_in_spree_shootings_1982%E2%80%932018_%28ongoing%29.svg.png

 

Spoiler

A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were relatively rarely used criminally before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.[1]

In 2004, a research report commissioned by the National Institute of Justice found that if the ban was renewed, the effects on gun violence would likely be small and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes. That study, by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. The authors also report that "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury." [31]

In 2004, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990–1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime. Page 10 of the Brady report, however, adds that "an evaluation of copycat weapons is necessary". Including "copycat weapons", the report concluded that "in the post-ban period, the same group of guns has constituted 3.1% of ATF traces, a decline of 45%."[32] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.[33]

 

Here's a video to help for educational purposes too:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 


It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riley24 said:
3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Yup. I believe so. 


"Why should I get a speeding ticket? I didn't crash!"

Really?  

  well to that I will say that you can fight that in the court's and usually win with little to no effort.

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Love it when people drop macho one-liners but misspell a word. And yes, I believe in self-preservation. That's why I want less guns near me. Call me a liberal snob, but I believe there's a more nuanced and complex solution to gun violence than 'shootin back

  What was soo macho about that?  It is true.  And it it is violent crime in general that you should be worried about.  You are more likely to win the lotto than get shot or killed by someone, even with a gun.

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

That's a sad story. I'm sure that's made you quite the advocate for civil liberties, especially Hispanic immigrants and Muslim-Americans. You would probably advocate for arming those groups of people, right? 

  It is in fact one of the reasons as to why I do advocate for individual liberties.  And yes I do believe that those group's should be able to have guns.  Do you?  I don't care what you think about what my family went through, you probably don't care for what the Jews or Chinese or the Mexicans, or the Native American's went through.  All that does is show your true colors

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

When in the last 50 years have guns been used to defend freedom? Black Panthers? I'm genuinely asking

Why does it matter when we had to use guns to protect our freedom?  The point is that we use weapons as a tool to defend freedom and preserve ourselves.

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

If we introduced 80 million guns to Canada, would individual Canadians be safer?

  I never said anything about introducing 80 million guns to Canada, but I do believe that if a individual thinks that they need or want a firearm for self defence or sport then they should not be restricted from them. 

Who are you or anyone else to say what I need for the defense of myself, my property, my home, or my State and Country?

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

You're literally wrong. Don't like NBC? Here's a Fox News article reporting the same exact thing (their website is a bit more factual than their TV program):

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/25/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-gun-measures-doubt-congress-will-act.html

  How am I literally wrong?  I don't like fox either, I am not a Republican, I am not a Democrat,

I am not a member of the NRA, I do not listen to Alex Jones, I support neither Trump or Hillary.  

 

  You can bring up polls all that you want, but polling 1,000 or even 50,000 people does NOT show the beliefs of all American's.

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

those polls are lies' - you definitely know how to receive new information. I'm honestly just warning you, claiming that credible polling agencies are 'lying' makes you sound unhinged.

  They are lies because they claim to be the opinion of most of America and they are not.  Even if they used 100,000 American's, that does not in itself speak to the belief of the entire country.  

 

  So yes they are lies, they are false and have never worked.  These are not credible.  It is you that sounds unhinged for believing that the small about of people that participate in these poll's represents the entire country as a whole.

 

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Guns are not knives. They are, and should be regulated differently. You're deflecting

  Knives and guns are tools that can be used to injure, maim or kill.  I never deflected, you are backing down because i called you out with seperating crime and gun crime.  A crime cannot compete with a crime for it is a crime.

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

ncorrect. There is a legal definition for assault weaponshttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/09/what_is_an_assault_weapon.html

 

  So if someone picks up a hammer, decides to use it as a weapon, and attacks another person with it, would it not be considered an assault weapon?

  I just mentioned how you can have a assault weapon, you on the other hand turned it into a subject on guns, reveling your utter dislike for firearms.

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

I never claimed that assault weapons made up for the majority of gun homicides. And come back when you have a smarter argument than 'only a few hundred people are murdered every year'. And I don't believe you about your hero story, sorry. It's the internet, you can't expect anyone to believe you.

  I never claimed that you did.  I was just showing you, from the FBI database, that rifles in general are are not used to kill soo many people.  Handguns are used more in murders than rifles are, and knives are used even more.  You are attacking an inanimate object that you have no knowledge about because of the belief that they are the most deadly weapon in the country.  The people that use these weapons in the military and law enforcement are civilians too.

 

  I don't expect you to believe my story, but there are many more like it in this country.  

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

His mother definitely didn't need an AR-15, especially not in a town with virtually no violent crime. And she definitely didn't need it outside of a safe, where anyone could get to it, including her deranged son. Other countries have laws regarding the storage of firearms, and inspections to enforce them. When the second amendment was written, the militia would do inspections of their members homes to ensure their weapons were stored correctly and up to code. Just a thought.

  She didn't need the rifle but she did in fact want it.  That is the main reason as to why people buy it, because they want it.

 

  I keep my AR15 outside of my safe, next to my bed, loaded and ready to go, because if someone breaks into my house and intends to do myself or my family harm I will defend myself.  I have no reason to lock my rifle up and I would prefer my fiancee to be able to use her pistol to get to the rifle since it is far easier for her to use.

 

  No one knows what is best for me, except for me.  I am a freeman and no one should try and control me.

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

That sentence made no sense, dude.

  What didn't make sense?  The government was warned, they had reason to restrict him, and they failed to enforce the law.  

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Definitely an argument for reducing the number of guns in circulation. We need less people's dads to have guns. Some of that change needs to happen culturally, I understand. 

  The number of guns in circulation has nothing to do with crime period.  Just because some people do horrid act's doesn't mean we should punish everyone.  How about punishing all the Russians that enslaved my family?  Oh wait, we cant, they were part of the allies.

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Are you pro-Bundy? Oh god....

  I was wondering if you would say that, that is the only reason I put that in there, you failed to acknowledge Athens Tennessee amd the American Revolution in favor of what some people find controversial.

Edited by ToeBius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 11:17 AM, qwertyK said:

Another day in America, and A mass shooting at a Santa Fe High school has occured in Texas, 50 miles from Houston. 8 students killed. The suspect "wearing a trenchcoat" opened fire with a sawn off shotgun at students in art class. Explosive devices also found. Seems like another shooter obsessed with Columbine. 

 

Mod edit to include link to the article: http://abc13.com/reports-of-shots-fired-at-santa-fe-high-school-/3490869/

 

 

I'm so sick of people saying things like this without offering any solutions. The UK's homicide rate increased after their gun control, and your silly little mayor is suggesting knife control.

What are your solutions? Ban revolvers and shotguns now? So many people like to virtue signal and say "Gun control is needed" or "I stand with the children" while they offer solutions to the problem. Guns were more easily accessible in the mid 19's, when people brought guns to school in their cars yet there were little to no mass school shootings. There are multiple factors contributing to the school mass shootings, but they still remain rare statistically of course which probably doesn't matter to a lot of you. 

Edited by SpikeTerm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't help but bring this video up after reading through this thread, perhaps people could gain another perspective from it. Unfortunately this is a cycle of violence:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VQULyT390

 

Isn't this the US equivalent of terrorist attacks that are ochestrated throughout Europe every once in a while? Maybe, or maybe not.

Edited by IdeallyStoddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ToeBius said:

Who do you suggest be the one's that assest the individuals that want a gun?  How will you ensure that they will not put there political beliefs before anything when they evaluate people?  How will this not be corrupt? 

 

Just. Like. Every. Other. Single. Regulation. Ever.

 

Do you say "Oh no, this criminal could be charged for a crime with laws that might have had political beliefs pressure behind them, how can we ensure that the people who made the law weren't putting their political beliefs before anything when they made the law and that the judges won't push their own agenda when sentencing, and how will this not be corrupt?" I doubt so. You'd say more "This criminal could be charged, that's good, laws are good." Same here. You really need to stop being so paranoid as soon as someone talk about making a law or regulation.

 

As to who would assess what individual can or cannot get their hands on a gun depending on their mental state, just make them pass a psychological test, just like people do when they want to be a police officer or enrole in the army. It's not a big deal really, no one calls the psychatrists that do the psychological tests in the police or army "people who would put their political beliefs before anything when they evaluate people" and "how will this not be corrupt". They just accept it. Same here, not a single difference. Do the same.

 

10 hours ago, ToeBius said:

 I am proposing to protect the school's the same was we protect every other government facility in the U.S.  And to think that you will solve the bullying issue with tougher punishments will do nothing to stop it.  Bullying is a power and control issue, they do it because you allow them to and you wont fight back, and the people you tell to help will do nothing to stop him and that feeds into his power.

 

You're contradicting yourself there. I'm saying that we should make reactions and punishments to bullying tougher so people can actually DO something against bullies, you tell me "yes but no because right now no one does anything against bullies". That's exactly what I'm saying. Giving people the ability to have tougher reactions and punishments on bullies will be a deterrent to bullying. That's how laws work in general. Why drug dealing isn't everyone's favorite job? Because the prison sentence behind it is a good deterrent to prevent people from doing so. It'd be the same here. Bullies bully people because people allow them to and people won't fight back, and the people you tell to help will do nothing. Changing that will prevent bullying, and you can do it by allowing teachers and students to report bullying situations to a police officer for example so the bully get charged with it.

 

10 hours ago, ToeBius said:

And you are continuing to forget the part of illegally acquiring firearms by these shooters.  As stated before, alot of these shooters stole there firearms or were already barred from owning them.

 

Okay. So this one is a bit of "common sense" as I've seen thrown around a lot in the later posts. Guns aren't like plants. They can't be grown out of the ground. You can't make a gun. It can't be manufactured by a single person. Therefore, where do you think the black market is getting its supplies? From the legal market. More guns on the legal market means more opportunities for a gun to be stolen and sold on the black market. Les guns on the legal market means less opportunities for a gun to be stolen and sold on the black market. Meaning it'd prove more difficult to find one on the black market, and with much higher prices because it'd be a more rare products (rare products are always more expensive). So, it's nice and all to say they can acquire illegal firearms, but you've to also think about "Where do those illegally acquired firearms come from?".

 

10 hours ago, ToeBius said:

I am talking about securing school's, which seems to be far too totalitarian, but redistricting my access to self defence tends to follow along the lines of common sense?

 

I don't see how YOUR access to self defense would be restricted whatsoever. You're sane? You don't show paranoid signs (a bit doubtful on this one due to your incredible tendency to think everyone wants to push their agenda and can't judge anything without being corrupted)? You don't show signs of a dire need for a carnage? Then you get your gun. Your access would not be affected, whatsoever. You'd just pass a little test that barely last an hour or so to have an authorization to own and carry a gun. The access to people who actually are not fit to have a gun, on the other hand, would be affected and rightfully so. Someone who has suicidal ideas or urges of murder shouldn't be handed a gun with a pat on the back. Again, no one bats an eye when someone is judged unfit to be a police officer or enroled in the army after a psychological test. I don't see why in this case everyone would go batshit crazy about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed that the weapons used in Friday’s school shooting were owned by the suspect’s father.

“We can confirm the firearms, a shotgun and a .38 caliber revolver, were legally owned by the father,” DPS Press Secretary Tom Vinger said in an email to CNN.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/santa-fe-texas-shooting-investigation/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2018 at 2:31 PM, Riley24 said:

Weird coincidence that the country drowning in guns has a lot of awful mass shootings.

Riley, what's your solution? The fact of the matter is that guns were more easily accessible in the 19's, and the gun culture was identical but there were little to no school mass shootings. We aren't drowning in guns? What would you rather have? A bunch of unarmed civilians and single women who can't bear arms, because your feelings were hurt? More guns do not equal more crime, gun ownership has been increasing since the 1950's, as gun violence and homicides have decreased. Do you care about facts? Vermont and New Hampshire are the safest states in the US with the strongest gun culture, Chicago has gun homicide rates way higher than those states. You are probably going to say "Well the guns in Chicago came from other states like Indiana". Even if you remove the amount of gun homicides committed with guns from other states Chicago still has higher rates than many other states.  You have to be more specific than "drowning in guns", but it is hard to be specific when the facts aren't on your side. Many countries are drowning in gun homicides, regardless of their gun control laws. Gun laws often create an underclass, in fact that was the first intentions of gun control in the US to keep free African Americans and former slaves from bearing arms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...