after the tragedy that struck Sandy Hook/Newtown last friday, there is a call for all video game players to abstain from their FPS games like black ops 2. i have no problems with doing that out of respect for the victims, but last night, while flipping thru the channels, i came across that excuse for a human being, nancy grace. she had on a guest that was have a fit about how our kids playing these types of games is a huge issue and how we all better start paying close attention to the next generation if we continue to let them playing these games.
wtf? seriously? i am so sick of hearing ppl blaming video games for shit like this. i grew up playing these games and still do play them and i've never had an urge to even fire a gun and am a pretty peaceful guy. fire me up and i'll do my best to cut you up verbally, but i havent raised a hand in anger in a looooong time. i have 2 boys, 9 and 16, who play these games.. sometimes way too much and neither of them have ever had any incidents of violence. they've never even shown any tendencies to handle confrontations physically.
so thats my opinions. anyone else think differently?
Posted by screwhead20 (Member # 16242) on :
Yeah in any tragedy there's always someone who wants to place blame on something. Happens all the time. Some blame video game violence, movies,or any form of media entertainment. I haven't been watching the news lately solely because of things like this. It's quite ridiculous IMO. The problem starts in the household as my dad would say.
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
Video Games + Mentally Unstable + Pharmaceutical drugs = deadly combination. It's just a side issue they actually found guns to use. Video games are SO much more graphic these days then when we were kids. These kids nowdays need strong parenting period and this stuff wouldn't happen.
Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
guns are a side issue?!?! i hardly think so. guns are a main issue. if his mom wasnt a gun nut, he'd have had to attack that school with a steak knife. i can pretty much guarantee that we'd not have 27 dead with a steak knife.
i've been keeping up with the whole thing because it happened about 20 mins from me and i have kids through out the schools in my town.
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
So we're going to punish the rest of the 99.9% of responsible sane gun owners who have the Constitutional Right to own guns because one mentally ill SOB went crazy? That's irrational.
There should be deeper background checks and some type of mental evaluations for people buying assault rifles for sure but the true issue lies with seeing the signs before this happens with people and get them help. Then again, if we ban these guns then these disturbed kids/men will just get them underground from a silent seller.
I have sources that can probably get me ANYTHING if I asked the right people of regardless of any laws that can be passed against guns and I am not even technically 'connected' if you know what I mean. People are barking up the wrong tree on this issue. They are so readily available on the streets it would make your head spin. Think about how much more weed people smoke in places that it's illegal to smoke it, like...uhm California. It's human nature to rebel and gun grabbing will only make people stock pile more guns to circumvent the law.
Do you even know what classifies an Assault Rifle as such?
Posted by bluetoelover (Member # 14736) on :
Constitutional Right. That right there fellas is your problem. That was introduced when their was only MUSKET's available for fuck sakes not AR-15's!
If you can't logically step back and look at what just happened and tell me with a straight face that Joe Blow average American NEEDS an AR-15(or similiar type of weapon) to "defend" himself then you sir are full of shit.
The whole world is not only laughing at you(America) but shaking their head incredously at how in the hell their is a majority of people STILL defending the whole "Right to Bear Arms" act... and the NRA is NOT helping the pro-gun movement right now either with their comments made recently.
Posted by solesurvivordragon (Member # 37330) on :
I really don't go to the forum as much, but I'm putting in my 2 cents:
When The NRA did a somewhat outlandish segment regarding the tragedy on Friday, the CEO points the fingers at video games that has guns..........It's pretty ironic that he'd bring that up, seeing that a few years ago there was a less than entertaining game called GunClub for the PS2, and it was sponsored by (Surprise, surprise)The NRA. Not only he didn't give a damn about the 20 children that got killed by that gunman, he put blame on practically everything and doesn't want to be responsible himself.
Even if that gunman did play Call Of Duty: Black Ops, I highly doubt that was the only thing that made him do a horrible and unforgettable thing like that. There are millions of people who played that certain game, so he might as well said that number of people who played a game like that will eventually become a mass murderer, and that would be a crazy and stupid thing to say. And just like everyone else, I think that video games shouldn't be blamed for what has happened.
Once again, when it comes to gun-related tragedies like Sandy Hook and before that, the NRA is still dodging bullets (Pun intended).
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
quote:Originally posted by bluetoelover: Constitutional Right. That right there fellas is your problem. That was introduced when their was only MUSKET's available for fuck sakes not AR-15's!
If you can't logically step back and look at what just happened and tell me with a straight face that Joe Blow average American NEEDS an AR-15(or similiar type of weapon) to "defend" himself then you sir are full of shit.
The whole world is not only laughing at you(America) but shaking their head incredously at how in the hell their is a majority of people STILL defending the whole "Right to Bear Arms" act... and the NRA is NOT helping the pro-gun movement right now either with their comments made recently.
The part of the Constitution that this right protects, is supposed to guarantee the Peoples' right of protection against a tyrannical gov't. And No one is laughing. If you want to start a civil war go ahead and try to take guns away..
[ December 22, 2012, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: NorcalfeetStudios ]
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
quote:Originally posted by solesurvivordragon: I really don't go to the forum as much, but I'm putting in my 2 cents:
When The NRA did a somewhat outlandish segment regarding the tragedy on Friday, the CEO points the fingers at video games that has guns..........It's pretty ironic that he'd bring that up, seeing that a few years ago there was a less than entertaining game called GunClub for the PS2, and it was sponsored by (Surprise, surprise)The NRA. Not only he didn't give a damn about the 20 children that got killed by that gunman, he put blame on practically everything and doesn't want to be responsible himself.
Even if that gunman did play Call Of Duty: Black Ops, I highly doubt that was the only thing that made him do a horrible and unforgettable thing like that. There are millions of people who played that certain game, so he might as well said that number of people who played a game like that will eventually become a mass murderer, and that would be a crazy and stupid thing to say. And just like everyone else, I think that video games shouldn't be blamed for what has happened.
Once again, when it comes to gun-related tragedies like Sandy Hook and before that, the NRA is still dodging bullets (Pun intended).
You should research what you mention before you mention it so as not to look like you didn't. This game is actually a non-killing, target & range practice game and is completely harmless.
If more kids understood that weapons are merely for self defense and should be respected instead of playing Black Ops and killing 1,000's of virtual people without batting an eye, then maybe we'd be able to start addressing this issue better.Desensitizing them against the fragility of life is the first step to not caring when they go crazy in real life. Sure, it's not only violent video games that does this, but it's a step in the right direction to preventing this kind of tragedy.
Posted by solesurvivordragon (Member # 37330) on :
quote:Originally posted by NorcalfeetStudios:
quote:Originally posted by solesurvivordragon: I really don't go to the forum as much, but I'm putting in my 2 cents:
When The NRA did a somewhat outlandish segment regarding the tragedy on Friday, the CEO points the fingers at video games that has guns..........It's pretty ironic that he'd bring that up, seeing that a few years ago there was a less than entertaining game called GunClub for the PS2, and it was sponsored by (Surprise, surprise)The NRA. Not only he didn't give a damn about the 20 children that got killed by that gunman, he put blame on practically everything and doesn't want to be responsible himself.
Even if that gunman did play Call Of Duty: Black Ops, I highly doubt that was the only thing that made him do a horrible and unforgettable thing like that. There are millions of people who played that certain game, so he might as well said that number of people who played a game like that will eventually become a mass murderer, and that would be a crazy and stupid thing to say. And just like everyone else, I think that video games shouldn't be blamed for what has happened.
Once again, when it comes to gun-related tragedies like Sandy Hook and before that, the NRA is still dodging bullets (Pun intended).
You should research what you mention before you mention it so as not to look like you didn't. This game is actually a non-killing, target & range practice game and is completely harmless.
If more kids understood that weapons are merely for self defense and should be respected instead of playing Black Ops and killing 1,000's of virtual people without batting an eye, then maybe we'd be able to start addressing this issue better.Desensitizing them against the fragility of life is the first step to not caring when they go crazy in real life. Sure, it's not only violent video games that does this, but it's a step in the right direction to preventing this kind of tragedy.
Well, I guess I was totally off-track regarding that. Nevertheless, I'm just like you and I'm fed up when anyone would get the notion that they blame video games for something like this. I'm big fan of fighting games, like Mortal Kombat.......but God forbid someone thinks I'll try to be like Sub-Zero and rip someone's spine.
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
quote:Originally posted by solesurvivordragon:
quote:Originally posted by NorcalfeetStudios:
quote:Originally posted by solesurvivordragon: I really don't go to the forum as much, but I'm putting in my 2 cents:
When The NRA did a somewhat outlandish segment regarding the tragedy on Friday, the CEO points the fingers at video games that has guns..........It's pretty ironic that he'd bring that up, seeing that a few years ago there was a less than entertaining game called GunClub for the PS2, and it was sponsored by (Surprise, surprise)The NRA. Not only he didn't give a damn about the 20 children that got killed by that gunman, he put blame on practically everything and doesn't want to be responsible himself.
Even if that gunman did play Call Of Duty: Black Ops, I highly doubt that was the only thing that made him do a horrible and unforgettable thing like that. There are millions of people who played that certain game, so he might as well said that number of people who played a game like that will eventually become a mass murderer, and that would be a crazy and stupid thing to say. And just like everyone else, I think that video games shouldn't be blamed for what has happened.
Once again, when it comes to gun-related tragedies like Sandy Hook and before that, the NRA is still dodging bullets (Pun intended).
You should research what you mention before you mention it so as not to look like you didn't. This game is actually a non-killing, target & range practice game and is completely harmless.
If more kids understood that weapons are merely for self defense and should be respected instead of playing Black Ops and killing 1,000's of virtual people without batting an eye, then maybe we'd be able to start addressing this issue better.Desensitizing them against the fragility of life is the first step to not caring when they go crazy in real life. Sure, it's not only violent video games that does this, but it's a step in the right direction to preventing this kind of tragedy.
Well, I guess I was totally off-track regarding that. Nevertheless, I'm just like you and I'm fed up when anyone would get the notion that they blame video games for something like this. I'm big fan of fighting games, like Mortal Kombat.......but God forbid someone thinks I'll try to be like Sub-Zero and rip someone's spine.
lol right on man, yeah I used to play Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter as a kid at 7-11 and empty my whole piggy bank full of change and quarters to get my fix, it was like drugs to us when we were 12 years old. Alot of us more mature men though, had good parenting and respect for firearms early and knew the consequences of what could happen if we used them improperly. I think most youth today have no grasp of reality versus fastasy games, mix that with some Asperger's and a little bullying and you have a deadly cocktail bomb ready to explode.
Posted by Lordsoysauce (Member # 2193) on :
Fun fact: Fox News pinned the blame on video games not even two hours after the shooting happened, pretty much enforcing the norm of "blame first, research later" that Fox News practices. It's some sort of sick, inverted corruption of the scientific method.
Anyways, it goes without saying that, because perfect evidence does not exist, there is no direct correlation between playing violent video games and being violent. Unfortunately, it seems that the vast majority of people do not understand that, and the entire game industry as we know it is going to come under fire because of this mass misconception. The will of the people can very easily become the will of the uninformed, inciting irrational conclusions with half-hearted research.
I'm a gamer. And I did not partake in the call of abstinence. Because such a demonstration could be (and probably WILL be) misinterpreted by the media as a cease-fire by gamers out of shame and guilt. And this will further propagate the already fierce thrashings that the gaming industry is coming under.
Nothing more than the media looking for a scapegoat to vent their frustrations on. Nevermind that the vast majority of gamers do not do these kinds of things, and the ones that do had other issues going on in their heads. Plus, the mother seems like she was not completely innocent either, since she was a "prepper" for that ill-fated 2012 Apocalypse who convinced her son that it was going to happen and kept a bunch of firearms around the house.
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
quote:since she was a "prepper" for that ill-fated 2012 Apocalypse who convinced her son that it was going to happen
There was no evidence that 2012 "apocalypse" talk was ever discussed, nor was this her reasoning for owning guns. "Prepping" for a rainy day is nothing illegal or crazy. She was just like every other gun-owner, excercising her right to own them, hunt with them and target practice with them. There's so much BS going around on ALL networks it's crazy.
Posted by Talos (Member # 39913) on :
Oh you people with liberal mindsets. -.-
quote:Originally posted by nusuth: guns are a side issue?!?! i hardly think so. guns are a main issue. if his mom wasnt a gun nut, he'd have had to attack that school with a steak knife.
I'm a gun nut and I keep my guns locked in a safe. So the issue is the mom giving easy access to the guns, not the guns themselves.
quote:Originally posted by bluetoelover: Constitutional Right. That right there fellas is your problem. That was introduced when there was only MUSKET's available for fuck sakes not AR-15's!
If you can't logically step back and look at what just happened and tell me with a straight face that Joe Blow average American NEEDS an AR-15(or similar type of weapon) to "defend" himself then you sir are full of shit.
So what? A right is a right. Why let a few bad eggs spoil it for the responsible people? I own an AR-15, no ammo currently, but I have one. It sits in my safe not harming anyone, whats the problem? I also own a 500 S&W, the most powerful handgun in production. A car enthusiast might have a turbo charged race car that goes 200+ mph, does he need it? What's your hobby? Do you need it?
I own my weapons for the sport of shooting. It's fun to shoot, what can I say? If so the situation arises, then for defense. Anyone who wants the ability to defend themselves doesn't go looking for trouble and doesn't want a troublesome situation to ever happen.
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
Talos, I don't think anything you say or all the facts in the world can ever change some folks' minds sadly. They and their president will learn the hard way probably twice...once when they TRY to take guns away and the other time once they do the gun violence rates skyrocket because all of the underground street gun buying exploding and every criminal getting a hold on these 'assualt rifles'. Sadly an "I told you so" moment will come but with much blood on their hands and a day late dollar short.
Posted by bluetoelover (Member # 14736) on :
I get a kick out of the pro gun people that claim "its to protect us from our government". If you need to worry about your government like that maybe its time to get the fuck outta the country your in....or arm yourself with weapons like a small platoon
And come to think of it, IF the govt takes away all civilian AR's for example and it is indeed pushed "underground" isn't that better then being able to let a whackjob go to fucking Walmart and load up on it with no hassle? I mean, take for example the latest incident, you think that Lanza kid would have been able to find an "underground" dealer?
Not the greatest analogy I know but you get what I'm saying right? The guys that go and commit these horrendous acts aren't usually the most sane individuals...usually loner types not your criminally connected types. So the chances of them finding an underground connection would be a helluva lot harder then them just walking into their local Walmart and loading up on supplies just by presenting ID. And if that alone prevents another mass shooting then fuck why WOULDN'T we support the bill?
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
quote: And come to think of it, IF the govt takes away all civilian AR's for example and it is indeed pushed "underground" isn't that better then being able to let a whackjob go to fucking Walmart and load up on it with no hassle? I mean, take for example the latest incident, you think that Lanza kid would have been able to find an "underground" dealer?
My brain short circuited a little when I tried to comprehend your reasoning on this. It's not hassle free AT ALL when you go anywhere to buy an AR-15. There's at least a 10 day waiting period and a long "application" type form to fill out for any firearms purchase (not to mention the stringent background checks they do already) and the fact you have to be 21 to purchase one.
If the kid had the balls to murder 26 people cold blood style, he probably would be able to find someone to sell him whatever he needed being as scared and angry as he was. There's alot of "what-if's" and "coulda-been's" as well.
quote: Not the greatest analogy I know but you get what I'm saying right? The guys that go and commit these horrendous acts aren't usually the most sane individuals...usually loner types not your criminally connected types. So the chances of them finding an underground connection would be a helluva lot harder then them just walking into their local Walmart and loading up on supplies just by presenting ID. And if that alone prevents another mass shooting then fuck why WOULDN'T we support the bill?
Bro, you don't have to be criminally connected to buy these guns. I could probably have one from the underground with one phone call and I am no where near a criminally connected. I can also just as easy purchase one from a dealer or retail hunting store. I'm glad I can help you understand the walmart thing, clearly you haven't ever tried to buy one legally OR illegally. No matter how many bills are passed, this will continue...and no one will give up their guns, ever. It's a lose/lose if they try.
Posted by Patrick (Member # 1169) on :
Here are some things I just like to add in a bullet list:
- Most people don't even know what makes an assualt rifle an assualt rifle. You can turn a hunting rifle into one by just adding a fancy pistol grip.
- Semi-automatic means shoots ONE bullet at a time. Fully-automatic means machine gun.
- When the right to bear arms was put in it was indeed so people did NOT fear their government. And if people think a government could NEVER turn on their own people, look at the world around you at some point.
- When video games weren't around what was it that caused all this? Oh it was music. Before that, movies. Before that, comic books. Please, it's always an excuse.
- It's funny that many politicians think we should take away assualt rifles from our own country, but yet OUR country constantly gives them to other countries around the world to battle tyranny and governments we oppose.
- Lets ban guns and that will solve so many problems. It's like when we outlawed all these drugs. Good thing no one ever has cocaine, esctasy, speed, acid, etc. now that laws exist to outlaw them.
- Most gun crimes are commited with handguns, not semi-automatic rifles.
- If the public isn't allowed to own semi-automatic rifles, or even military grade fully automatic weapons, do you think criminals will cease to have them? Would it even make a significant amount of a dent in the amount of crimes they might be used in?
- Less people die from gun violence than alcohol and drug deaths. Maybe if the media made a bigger deal out of those we'd have people crying for stricter policies on those?
All these points aren't to say what happened up north and in many other schools over the years wasn't bad. It was. But there is a bigger picture than knee jerk reactions about it being video games, gun laws, etc. Since man was on this earth they've killed one another. They will always find ways to do this. Again, there is no simple "ban this" attitude.
Patrick
Posted by Rider Aldebaran (Member # 38525) on :
Relevant:
Posted by Talos (Member # 39913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Patrick: [QB][/QB]
Patrick.... I love you.
Posted by Fwrinkledsoles (Member # 101) on :
Posted by bluetoelover (Member # 14736) on :
I've given up on the "gun" debate. Just like Rider's illustration points out, no matter how many gun massacres there is it still won't change the mind of pro-gun people. Sad really.
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
Maybe because it's not about the massacres...
Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
it's really about hiding behind an outdated section of the constitution. it was written over 200 years ago and based on the then current situation. we have about as much in common with that society as our cell phones have in common with a telegraph. we are constantly updating our laws and our rights. why is it insane to think that perhaps we need to review the second amendment and update it to fit our modern society? does it really still hold the same intent? how many gun owners out there really keeps arms "to guarantee the Peoples' right of protection against a tyrannical gov't"?? i'm not a government or history buff, but its seems it pretty much common sense that you can't live by the same exact laws for over 200 years without some kind of modernization. even the catholic church has tried to amend some of it's 'rules' and if men who writing the word of god could be updated, perhaps our forefathers could use some updating. i also dont claim to have the answer to what that would be but it seems obvious as hell to me that the current situation is a fucking disaster. background checks are bullshit. gun classes are bullshit.
the whole argument about banning guns making an underground market thrive and keeping them from the hands of real gun owners is a kind of weak. the comparison to illegal drugs is even weaker. we cant be afraid to take measures to limit ownership or whatever because we're afraid of what might happen. using that logic, lets legalize all drugs. lets sell heroin at walmart. we can dispense crack out of vending machines. how about you drop a dollar in a machine in a public bathroom and is get a snort of coke preloaded on a disposable spoon? lets do away with speed limits too cause you know 99.8% of drivers out there are speeding and not getting caught. i mean speed limits dont work anyway. online piracy? bah.. pretty much no one gets caught for that so legalize it! fuck, lets find any that difficult to enforce law and do away with it.. because it's.. just.. too.. hard!
again, i dont have any answers but it seems to me that pretending there isn't a problem is utterly ignorant.
Posted by Patrick (Member # 1169) on :
No one is pretending there isn't a problem, nusuth. But when people throw out a blanket statement like "BAN ALL ASSUALT RIFLES," and they don't even KNOW what an assualt rifle is, is bullcrap too. I bet not even half of the people who say that know what one is. Every time I hear someone say that they say it's a machine gun. Assualt rifle is the fancy lingo made to scare people. If there is going to be laws made, then good. But they HAVE TO MAKE SENSE! None of this everything is bad bullcrap. For instance:
These are the SAME GUN, but one is an assualt rifle
Here are some of the much hated AK-47 variants, but because you don't have a pistol grip on Model E, it's NOT an assualt rifle:
Again, everyone has a right to their opinions and I'm the type that says to look at things from both sides to make a more logical choice.
For those who care to know some of the assualt rifle classifications and differences from normal rifles, this is a pretty good breakdown:
Patrick
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
Underground gun markets thriving whenever these bans and bills are introduced are a REALITY, not a "weak argument". I know that American Idol and the latest gossip from Kim Kardashian may have you distracted but the real world is still turning outside the dank cave some people live in even if they don't want to accept some of life's harshest realities.
Patrick, I really like variant A and E in that diagram. Pistol grip or not it is foolish to simply classify it as an assault weapon just because of that. I don't know anyone who can fire an AK pointing it like a pistol and assualt more than the tops of trees and the ceiling because of recoil much less do any damage to crowds of people anyway lol...ok maybe Arnold can lol.
Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
quote:No one is pretending there isn't a problem, nusuth
oh, i disagree. listen to the NRA, listen to anyone here in this thread alone who is hiding behind the 2nd amendment. i am fairly ignorant when it comes to firearms but mostly because i have no interest in them.. which is why i dont make ignorant statements like "ban all assault rifles." i also hate hearing the opposite side saying inane comments like "guns dont kill people, people kill people." i do agree with you though that knee jerk reactions arent going to solve issues.
quote:Underground gun markets thriving whenever these bans and bills are introduced are a REALITY, not a "weak argument". I know that American Idol and the latest gossip from Kim Kardashian may have you distracted but the real world is still turning outside the dank cave some people live in even if they don't want to accept some of life's harshest realities.
odd.. i never claimed it wouldnt be a reality. my statement was that using the logic that since a law might be difficult to enforce, it's not worth creating is weak. then again your childish rebuttal about being distracted by pop culture and, therefore, out of touch just illustrates your mindset. you cant come up with a mature and logic response so stoop to throwing rocks.
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
quote: which is why i dont make ignorant statements
Except when it's regarding the second ammendment or using a media talking point claim that defenders of their own property are "hiding" behind the 2nd ammendment. No actually, we're all standing quite tall behind it not cowaring behind school desks losing our lives as if we didn't have protection.
quote: odd.. i never claimed it wouldnt be a reality. my statement was that using the logic that since a law might be difficult to enforce, it's not worth creating is weak. then again your childish rebuttal about being distracted by pop culture and, therefore, out of touch just illustrates your mindset. you cant come up with a mature and logic response so stoop to throwing rocks.
So by your logic with all due respect..we should maybe create laws preventing the Alien Citizen of Mars' Child Anti-Slavery act JUST in case we ever found life on Mars and JUST in case they had children that someone might abduct into slavery...oh ok, that was too far out there for you huh? ....How about just a law banning car tires with tire tread less than 99% because that's 1% closer to having tire failure?That's essentially the knee-jerk reaction from Psycho Nazi witches like Feinstein are trying to justify because they simply don't understand how the real world works.
Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda...they've tryed it in other countries and failed. Never going to be successful with taking guns away from Criminals or the lawful public owners nor is it a weak argument..so says the 200+ million gun owners who didn't go on a rampage today. Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
wow. someone needs some help in reading comprehension.
there is no 'just in case' in my arguments. there is a real problem that those that do hide behind the 2nd amendment chose to ignore. countries that have stricter gun control laws have less gun violence. period. we are having far too many incidents of some fucktard grabbing guns, whether they are the owners of said guns or not, and shooting up random people in public places. keep your mantra of 'it's my constitutional right to bear arms' and i'll continue to try and use actual logic.. although i am not sure why.
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
Countries that have strict gun control laws do NOT have lower violence. And even if that were even remotely true, none of those countries have a 3rd world neighboring country with the largest cartel and drug problem in the world next to it either to keep feeding the weapons in. lol, look...you're flat out mistaken here. Proof that you are mistaken can just be seen here that everytime a mass shooting takes place it's at a "gun-free" zone or county with very strict gun laws...disprove that fact.
Please provide evidence from a non biased source next time if you think you have a chance with this (which you don't). You are however entitled to your opinion even as wrong as it is about guns based on your self admitted lack of knowledge of guns and the actual 2nd ammendment (just quoting your own words here).
[ January 03, 2013, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: NorcalfeetStudios ]
Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
Me:
quote:countries that have stricter gun control laws have less gun violence. period.
Norcal:
quote:Countries that have strict gun control laws do NOT have lower violence.
*sigh again, reading comprehension! if you read each and every word in a sentence it actually means different things. perhaps you are using a la carte logic though. you get to pick and chose what words you want to argue with.
i did do some research after this though and i will admit that the answers for either side is not as cut and dry as they say. the biggest problem though is the complexity of data and its causality. comparing easy numbers though does illustrate some glaringly obvious correlations:
*that one is kind of messed up. the guns number is based on england and wales and the homicides is based on all of the UK
so elementary school logic will tell you more guns = more gun violence and i don't know about you, but i'll take on some guy with a knife over any handgun or rifle WHICH IS ALL I HAVE BEEN FUCKING TRYING TO SAY SINCE THE START!!! Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
quote:Originally posted by nusuth: Me:
quote:countries that have stricter gun control laws have less gun violence. period.
Norcal:
quote:Countries that have strict gun control laws do NOT have lower violence.
*sigh again, reading comprehension! if you read each and every word in a sentence it actually means different things. perhaps you are using a la carte logic though. you get to pick and chose what words you want to argue with.
i did do some research after this though and i will admit that the answers for either side is not as cut and dry as they say. the biggest problem though is the complexity of data and its causality. comparing easy numbers though does illustrate some glaringly obvious correlations:
*that one is kind of messed up. the guns number is based on england and wales and the homicides is based on all of the UK
so elementary school logic will tell you more guns = more gun violence and i don't know about you, but i'll take on some guy with a knife over any handgun or rifle WHICH IS ALL I HAVE BEEN FUCKING TRYING TO SAY SINCE THE START!!!
No link and you just expect those numbers to be legit? Come on man lol. You don't cite a source nor does it even show the year, like you copy pasted it from some wack-job liberal blog site.
Guns and millions of them have been around since even before the signing of Our Declaration of Independence and only not until semi-recently has there been anything of mention until these copycat killer mental patients under heavy psych drugs happen to pick up a gun and flip out. Like I said before 200+ million gun owners today did NOT go on a shooting rampage..I think we see who has the selective reading comprehension.
The next day after the CT shooting in China, a man killed 22 kids with a Knife so you got your wish sadly to say. Whatever instrument is available they will use...like I said, you should ban cars, bald tires, forks, cans of dapper dan's hair grease...why don't we just chop everyone's arms off so that there's no way to kill another human being?
If you and the liberal base are so anti-gun why don't you petition Mr. Obama to have his secret security detail drop all their firearms since guns are so bad? If they ban guns for the citizens I will expect to see this next ok? Oh, and tell Diane Feinschein in California to revoke her own conceal carry permit. Look it up, you guys are hypocrites. Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
those are statistics from 2007-2010 and i found the information from factcheck.org and wikipedia which compiled their information from 19 sources.
i'm not going to bother to continue to waste my time with this because its fairly obvious you're close minded and cant stick to the actual discussion.
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
lol quitting so soon and you didn't even debunk my China mass knifing stats or talk about why Obama's security shouldn't have guns? Aww I am dissapointed man!
Yes, I am aware how inconvenient the facts are against your position. No worries, you can have your opinion thankfully which the Constitution guarantees and the Facts will still remain Facts. The gov't will never take guns away from 200+ million people no matter how many laws they pass I can PROMISE you that til the day we all die.
I truly hope that these mass shootings will stop but likely not since there are many mentally ill retards out there who can use knives, guns, bats, cars, and even viscious dogs to kill and mame people with just as well which you don't hear about even though they happen more than the gun violence. Just remember one thing if anything else from this discussion: The only thing that is going to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a GOOD guy with a gun Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
Good video evidence showing why, with statistical evidence that we need to keep our weapons here in this country.
I'd like to point out that Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, 19 children under the age of 6, and injured over 680 others. Not only can you still buy box trucks, but you can still buy the ingredients he used to make the bomb.
The argument is so moot. Those who like guns will want to keep them and those who don't will want to ban them. It's like arguing PS3 vs Xbox or PC vs Mac.
[ January 07, 2013, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Talos ]
Posted by Patrick (Member # 1169) on :
quote:Originally posted by Talos: It's like arguing PS3 vs Xbox or PC vs Mac.
I'm offended that you didn't put the Wii U in that!
Patrick
Posted by Talos (Member # 39913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Patrick:
quote:Originally posted by Talos: It's like arguing PS3 vs Xbox or PC vs Mac.
I'm offended that you didn't put the Wii U in that!
Patrick
... or Wii U vs. a potato.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
Ahh, Americans.
All kidding aside, I think it is truly disgusting and "the individual" who did this should be ashamed of himself for so flippantly using the mass killing in China to "prove" the strength of his argument.
Yeah, great taste there - I'm sure you're very proud of that. Fuck, if only he killed double, right?
Please don't respond to this - I really don't care what you have to say about it. I didn't mention your name - maybe someone else was horrifically distasteful too!
Basic gist: parents/non-gamers see kids playing these games which are about pummelling people full of holes and decapitating hookers to get your money back. Kids are seeing puzzles to solve and different ways of solving problems. People had issues with Space Invaders when it came out.
Basic gist - why do you need a gun which fires 6 bullets a second for "recreation"?
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
Ahh brits...another problem is douchebags like Morgan who aren't even a citizen calls our Constitution a "little book" and lectures us on OUR laws. That was your first mistake. Second, don't worry about the guns..no one is taking anything away no matter how many laws are passed. The joke is on the anti-gun people on that one lol...over 300 million registered guns, I wonder how many NON-registered ones? The last time I believe the British tried to take us and our guns they lost.
Posted by bluetoelover (Member # 14736) on :
Well keep on slaughtering yourselves then, but hey, you get to keep your guns though right?
I just logically can't understand why a civilian NEEDS a fucking AR-15. No really, please enlighten me. I'm gonna flip flop on my previous argument where I said that no civilian should have ANY gun and say for shits and giggles that an ordinary average joe should have the ability to own say a .38 Smith and Wesson handgun for "protection".
So please tell me WHY the same average Joe NEEDS an AR-15? I know I'm singling out the AR-15 but replace the AR-15 with any other assault rifle for your "argument".
I won't resort to petty insults and I would hope you wouldn't either. Sidenote, I seen the "petition" to deport Piers Morgan.... REALLY?! The guy is trying to spearhead a movement to save lives essentially and the US is trying to deport him? I just don't get it...
Posted by solesurvivordragon (Member # 37330) on :
quote:Originally posted by bluetoelover: Well keep on slaughtering yourselves then, but hey, you get to keep your guns though right?
I just logically can't understand why a civilian NEEDS a fucking AR-15. No really, please enlighten me. I'm gonna flip flop on my previous argument where I said that no civilian should have ANY gun and say for shits and giggles that an ordinary average joe should have the ability to own say a .38 Smith and Wesson handgun for "protection".
So please tell me WHY the same average Joe NEEDS an AR-15? I know I'm singling out the AR-15 but replace the AR-15 with any other assault rifle for your "argument".
I won't resort to petty insults and I would hope you wouldn't either. Sidenote, I seen the "petition" to deport Piers Morgan.... REALLY?! The guy is trying to spearhead a movement to save lives essentially and the US is trying to deport him? I just don't get it...
Well, that petition was made by Alex Jones (a conservative radio show host and gun advocate), not the US. He started that petition because Jones thought that Piers was attacking the 2nd Amendment, which I really don't he was. The White House responded to the 100,000 signatures and defended his right to speak his mind about the situation.
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
An AR-15 is a hedge against a tyrannical gov't BlueToe, it's a gauranteed right in the 2nd ammendment. Sure they had muskets back in 1776, but so did the Army. Granted it's a little unequal now with the govt having nukes and scalar weaponry versus the average Joe's AR-15 but at least we have a fighting chance. Automatic guns are already banned, what more do you want?
Did you also go out on a limb and say 'maybe' we should be able to defend ourselves with a .38? lol How nice of you. Oh and BTW, an AR-15 is NOT an 'assault rifle'. I did remind you to do your homework before you came back to class
quote:Originally posted by bluetoelover: Well keep on slaughtering yourselves then, but hey, you get to keep your guns though right?
I just logically can't understand why a civilian NEEDS a fucking AR-15. No really, please enlighten me. I'm gonna flip flop on my previous argument where I said that no civilian should have ANY gun and say for shits and giggles that an ordinary average joe should have the ability to own say a .38 Smith and Wesson handgun for "protection".
So please tell me WHY the same average Joe NEEDS an AR-15? I know I'm singling out the AR-15 but replace the AR-15 with any other assault rifle for your "argument".
I won't resort to petty insults and I would hope you wouldn't either. Sidenote, I seen the "petition" to deport Piers Morgan.... REALLY?! The guy is trying to spearhead a movement to save lives essentially and the US is trying to deport him? I just don't get it...
Well, that petition was made by Alex Jones (a conservative radio show host and gun advocate), not the US. He started that petition because Jones thought that Piers was attacking the 2nd Amendment, which I really don't he was. The White House responded to the 100,000 signatures and defended his right to speak his mind about the situation.
I'd hardly call Alex Jones a 'conservative' talk show host. He bashes Bush just as bad as anyone who tries to trample the 2nd Ammendment.
Posted by bluetoelover (Member # 14736) on :
Like I said, I flip flopped for the sake of the argument. I don't really agree with average joe having a gun to begin with IF thats what it takes to end mass slaughters of innocent people. And yes I know they will contact underground gun dealers I get it.... cut the bullshit about "its not an assault rifle" too man. Its a damn powerful gun that redneck fucks or mentally unstable people should not have access to. The only thing your clinging to in this argument is the 2nd Amendment issue, I get it. No really I do. The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect the citizens against the potential attack from their own tyrannical government. Can that not be updated/abolished for that matter these days? I haven't seen the US government go on shooting sprees against its own people have you?
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
quote:Originally posted by bluetoelover: Like I said, I flip flopped for the sake of the argument. I don't really agree with average joe having a gun to begin with IF thats what it takes to end mass slaughters of innocent people. And yes I know they will contact underground gun dealers I get it.... cut the bullshit about "its not an assault rifle" too man. Its a damn powerful gun that redneck fucks or mentally unstable people should not have access to. The only thing your clinging to in this argument is the 2nd Amendment issue, I get it. No really I do. The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect the citizens against the potential attack from their own tyrannical government. Can that not be updated/abolished for that matter these days? I haven't seen the US government go on shooting sprees against its own people have you?
Did that link shake you up a bit? lol looks like it considering you are using derogatory terms against people and further knee jerking to your position of anti-gun. Oh by the way, why wasn't there an ACTUAL AR-15 rifle found at the scene of the crime in Newtown? Why only 2 handguns and a shotgun? See your premise is 'shot down' pardon the pun from the beginning.
I Know of many other non rifle guns like semi-auto and non semi auto pistols that can hit just as hard as the 15 and a shotgun you can get over the counter at a retail sports store that can as well. Get over it and let the 99% of responsible gun owners have their guns while kids who listen to people like you with mental trauma do the crimes. Fix them first. You're just using a fallacious platform to further your agenda which you don't even understand since you don't even know what an AR-15 is. Like I said, do your homework before you pretend to know anything about guns first.
quote: I haven't seen the US government go on shooting sprees against its own people have you?
How about Waco Texas in the 90's when the government killed roughly 75 people and children. 3 times+ more than Newtown. Or how about all the innocent women and children and bystanders in Pakistan from Drone strikes on weddings? Hypocrites can't have their cake and eat it too on this issue. Anything else? I suggest you rethink your opinion based on facts like I suggested first weeks ago when you were forced out of this topic by default.
[ January 14, 2013, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: NorcalfeetStudios ]
Posted by Talos (Member # 39913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Andy-Laa: Basic gist - why do you need a gun which fires 6 bullets a second for "recreation"?
quote:Originally posted by bluetoelover: I just logically can't understand why a civilian NEEDS a fucking AR-15. No really, please enlighten me.
So please tell me WHY the same average Joe NEEDS an AR-15? I know I'm singling out the AR-15 but replace the AR-15 with any other assault rifle for your "argument".
I guess you ignored what I said earlier in the thread. And I really see you ignored what Patrick said too.
Why do people need cars that go 5 times the speed limit? Why do people need 90 inch tvs? Why do people need cigarettes and alcohol? I have a 500 S&W, the most powerful handgun in production. Do I need it? Nope, but everyone has their hobbies. I take it you've probably never fired a gun, probably never will, so you'll never understand.
You know we can buy rifles that can kill from a mile away? (50 BMG, 338 Lapua) No one ever mentions these big scary man killers. Or wait! What about tannerite? It's an explosive. You can legally buy it, mix it and proceed to blow it up... legally! Another thing that is never mentioned. You see where I'm getting at? You think AR-15's are so bad and scary, because the media has told you so. The media is probably the only reason you even know what an AR-15 is.
... and, Heaven forbid I might say something insensitive and selfish on the internet, why should 20 some deaths out of the 7 billion people infecting this planet ban MY "recreation."
[ January 14, 2013, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: Talos ]
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
quote:The media is probably the only reason you even know what an AR-15 is.
LOL you are so right on that one...BTW, is that your 500 in your avatar picture with the green grip?
That's definetly one of my fav handguns, freaking canon! Posted by bluetoelover (Member # 14736) on :
I used to work for a security company that required me to have my PAL and fire a .38 six shooter then later transferred over to a 40 semi. Plus we had a 870 Remington Pump Action with us at all times, and I had to re-qualify my shooting twice a year, I worked that job for just over 3 years so yes I do know a little about guns, and I have fired thousands of rounds between training and re-qualification.
Little sidenote, the fact that people had guns didn't scare as much as someone with a knife. Our bullet resistant vests would only slow the impact down of a select few types of guns and even then your insides were gonna take a beating but someone with a knife scared the shit out of me. A knife would cut through a vest like butter....
Your probably questioning why I would share that sidenote as it seems to add fuel to your fire/argument...which it does. I just want you to realize I'm not some random bible-thumping retard that shits his pants over something that happens in the world and immediately jumps up and says BOYCOTT! I don't wander around this world with a helmet on inside a bubble either, you presented valid arguments regarding everything that was covered in this thread I won't/can't deny that.
Believe it or not about 4 or 5 months ago I was seriously considering starting my gun collection, the more I thought of it(and my wife's input lol) I decided that I didn't want an arsenal in my house, and yes they would have been properly stored and locked up. I just didn't want to bring unnecessary risk to me and my wife. You are probably going to say "Your bringing risk to you both by NOT having guns in the house" right?
Posted by bluetoelover (Member # 14736) on :
quote:I'm not some random bible-thumping retard that shits his pants over something that happens in the world and immediately jumps up and says BOYCOTT!
What in the world does a Bible thumper have to do with "boycotting"? lol That's a first Usually, it's the liberals and hippies who boycott stuff if you hadn't noticed. Side issue but funny since you were grasping for words there.
quote: I used to work for a security company that required me to have my PAL and fire a .38 six shooter then later transferred over to a 40 semi. Plus we had a 870 Remington Pump Action with us at all times
Cool story! Now what if your boss came in and said you weren't allowed to use firearms anymore on the job, just billy clubs and pepper spray? Fill in the blanks.
quote: Believe it or not about 4 or 5 months ago I was seriously considering starting my gun collection, the more I thought of it(and my wife's input lol) I decided that I didn't want an arsenal in my house, and yes they would have been properly stored and locked up. I just didn't want to bring unnecessary risk to me and my wife. You are probably going to say "Your bringing risk to you both by NOT having guns in the house" right?
Yea it's your right to have guns, I mean heck..Diane Feinschtein had her own guns and carry permit, all of those neo-liberal authoritarians love guns, just that you can't have them. Unnecessary risk/Locked up guns, having to ask your wife for permission...uhm...on second thought you don't deserve to own them. Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
Quoted from your link:
quote: They're copies of the rifles carried by modern soldiers, and they fire high-velocity bullets from large magazines as often as you can pull the trigger. (The military versions differ only in that they are capable of firing a steady stream of bullets with one pull.)
I stopped reading at this point where the blogger pretty much admitted not knowing anything about an AR-15. Someone should send him a link to that which I posted last page. The military 'version' is completely different. The only similarity I would say is that they are painted black and fire bullets out of them Posted by Patrick (Member # 1169) on :
Someone above mentioned something about sniper style rifles and why people aren't pissed about them. They were slightly when the DC Sniper (happened within less than an hour from where I live) was picking people off. If that started happening more often, you'd hear the same thing.
I also see the terms "assualt weapon" and "assualt rifle" being interachanged. They're actually different, so look that up.
No matter what the arguement here, criminals and insane whack jobs will ALWAYS find a gun. Because of these people the law abiding citizen will have to suffer. It's odd that before Connecticut & Colorado, this issue wasn't as big of a deal as it is now (at least to the amount of people as it is all of a sudden). Where were all these people (or sheep) before these things happened? I'm sure they'll move onto whatever topic the media puts forth next. I guess if Hurricane Sandy happened afterward and as many people got dicked over as they did, it would have given them something new to jump on. Guess we just have to wait for the new big media item.
Patrick
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by Talos:
quote:Originally posted by Andy-Laa: Basic gist - why do you need a gun which fires 6 bullets a second for "recreation"?
quote:Originally posted by bluetoelover: I just logically can't understand why a civilian NEEDS a fucking AR-15. No really, please enlighten me.
So please tell me WHY the same average Joe NEEDS an AR-15? I know I'm singling out the AR-15 but replace the AR-15 with any other assault rifle for your "argument".
I guess you ignored what I said earlier in the thread. And I really see you ignored what Patrick said too.
Why do people need cars that go 5 times the speed limit? Why do people need 90 inch tvs? Why do people need cigarettes and alcohol? I have a 500 S&W, the most powerful handgun in production. Do I need it? Nope, but everyone has their hobbies. I take it you've probably never fired a gun, probably never will, so you'll never understand.
I go clay pigeon shooting - I use my dad's Beretta 12 gauge if memory serves. I don't need a gun that can rip my arm off with recoil or blast a hole through a foot of solid steel to do that. The difference between all those things is:
1) they are not as readily available/affordable as guns in America.
2) most importantly, their main purpose is not to kill or destroy something - it may happen, but for guns, that is their primary use.
quote:Originally posted by Talos: You know we can buy rifles that can kill from a mile away? (50 BMG, 338 Lapua) No one ever mentions these big scary man killers. Or wait! What about tannerite? It's an explosive. You can legally buy it, mix it and proceed to blow it up... legally! Another thing that is never mentioned. You see where I'm getting at? You think AR-15's are so bad and scary, because the media has told you so. The media is probably the only reason you even know what an AR-15 is.
We don't get the media talking about how guns should be banned in America - it's irrelevant to us.
Seriously, this is me coming at it from an altruistic standpoint - it affects me in no way, other than finding it upsetting, that Americans are slaughtering innocent Americans using legally purchased guns.
It would scare the shit out of me if I lived there - on behalf of logical, reasoned people like you who can responsibly handle a gun - that rednecks who believe a "tyrannical government" uprising is around the corner are stockpiling weapons and ammunition under their beds, waiting for a chance to shoot someone...which everyone can agree, I'm sure, was how the killer got his hands on one in the first place - his mother stockpiling weapons, waiting for Armageddon I believe it was.
quote:Originally posted by Talos: ... and, Heaven forbid I might say something insensitive and selfish on the internet, why should 20 some deaths out of the 7 billion people infecting this planet ban MY "recreation."
Kids' deaths. Hilarious, aren't they?
As long as the DERN GOVERNMENT DON'T TEKE OUR GERNZ, right?
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
quote: that Americans are slaughtering innocent Americans using legally purchased guns.
That's a pretty broad brush to paint with and fairly offensively condescending since you know it's not true at it's core meaning. It was a couple psychopath kids who were on anti-depressants that couldn't handle their failed little lives and took it out on others.
quote: It would scare the shit out of me if I lived there - on behalf of logical, reasoned people like you who can responsibly handle a gun - that rednecks who believe a "tyrannical government" uprising is around the corner are stockpiling weapons and ammunition under their beds, waiting for a chance to shoot someone...which everyone can agree, I'm sure, was how the killer got his hands on one in the first place - his mother stockpiling weapons, waiting for Armageddon I believe it was.
A)You wouldn't be welcomed here with your radical opinions outside your "la -la" land anyway.
B)Guns are a hedge AGAINST any possible uprising of tyrannical gov't and stay locked and loaded away in our homes for that day, no one is planning on it and everyone hopes that day never comes. If it does however, people like you and Bluetoe will be SOL...we will have the food, the shelter, the medicine and protection and you will be begging these so called rednecks to let you through the gate to eat and take shelter. I know more city slicker 'bros' who are the farthest thing from 'rednecks' who are just as ready so your stereotypes are fallacious.
quote: Kids' deaths. Hilarious, aren't they?
As long as the DERN GOVERNMENT DON'T TEKE OUR GERNZ, right?
Spoken like a true communist authoritarian Andy, well done. Way to honor the lives of those innocent babies. Posted by Talos (Member # 39913) on :
Andy and bluetoe
Sorry for assuming you've never handled guns before, kinda makes me not think so harshly about your opinions. Not saying you're right, but at least you have room to speak. Usually people who are against guns know nothing about them except that they go boom. Kind of like a Halo player hates CoD and hasn't even played it, or vice versa. And that bit about the kids, I hate it that it happened and if it were my kids then I'd be upset that I wasn't there to kill the bastard myself, not upset at the guns. But there's just so much death around the world that to me there's no reason to get upset about people I didn't know or wouldn't have cared about in the first place. There's WAY more kids being killed in the middle east, by our own bombs, no one cares about them do they? I do have a morbid sense of humor though, life is just easier not getting offended by anything.
Norcal - Yup, that's my cannon! The five holes I put in the target were from 25 yards with my own 400 grain reloads.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by Talos: Andy and bluetoe
Sorry for assuming you've never handled guns before, kinda makes me not think so harshly about your opinions. Not saying you're right, but at least you have room to speak. Usually people who are against guns know nothing about them except that they go boom. Kind of like a Halo player hates CoD and hasn't even played it, or vice versa. And that bit about the kids, I hate it that it happened and if it were my kids then I'd be upset that I wasn't there to kill the bastard myself, not upset at the guns. But there's just so much death around the world that to me there's no reason to get upset about people I didn't know or wouldn't have cared about in the first place. There's WAY more kids being killed in the middle east, by our own bombs, no one cares about them do they? I do have a morbid sense of humor though, life is just easier not getting offended by anything.
I also respect your opinion and my feelings on the matter are not directed at people such as yourself who I know are safe and respectful with firearms.
It's mostly just the mass availability I can't get my head around - what screening is there?
In England, it's pretty tough to get your gun license - I've always just been my dad's "+1" when we go shooting. And even when you get it, you're dropping a LOT of money for a rifle (handguns are banned in the UK as are semi-automatic and automatic weapons of any type).
You have to tick all the boxes for responsibility and most importantly, there's spot-checks to both ensure that you are keeping the weapon locked and in a hard-to-reach area and to prove that you "need" it - are you signed up to a shooting range, how often do you go, who do you go with, do you shoot competitively etc etc.
Even if you can satisfy all these points, the officer in charge of granting it doesn't have to. It's up to him whether he wants to.
Say what you want, but compare the 35 annual gun-related deaths in the UK (which is including 3 countries by the way) to America's 86 per day and tell me there's not a clear correlation between gun crime and legality of firearms.
US population 2012 - 311,591,917 UK Population 2012 - 62,641,000
Scale it down and it's pretty much divide it by 5 (4.9)
So, to adjust the population difference, the US number of deaths by firearms is 17 compared to the UK's 0.096 per day
[ January 15, 2013, 06:52 AM: Message edited by: Andy-Laa ]
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
quote:Say what you want, but compare the 35 annual gun-related deaths in the UK (which is including 3 countries by the way) to America's 86 per day and tell me there's not a clear correlation between gun crime and legality of firearms.
Just like Piers Morgan, you ignore the fact that violent crimes and robberies have exponentially increased. Why don't you post those numbers? Also, why don't you mention the fact that 86 out of 86 99% of the time of America's gun deaths per day are by gangs in inner cities where they have the strictest gun laws inacted? Truth is slightly inconvenient isn't it? Posted by luvtheladyfeet (Member # 33464) on :
Just for the record: The day of (or the day after) the Newtown massacre there were NOT 22 children killed in China by a man with a knife. There were, however, 22 children INJURED by a man.... with a knife.
[ January 16, 2013, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: luvtheladyfeet ]
Posted by NorcalfeetStudios (Member # 732) on :
quote:Originally posted by luvtheladyfeet: Just for the record: The day of (or the day after) the Newtown massacre there were NOT 22 children killed in China by a man with a knife. There were, however, 22 children INJURED by a man.... with a knife.
Does it even matter? How can an adult be allowed to knife 22 children seriously injuring them without anyone stopping him after say, 2 or 3?
Also, In March of 2010, an unemployed doctor reportedly broke into a school near Nanping. During the attack, the man killed eight children with a knife. Another incident that year involved a man who assaulted 28 students, two teachers, and a security guard at a kindergarten in eastern China.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Jerkoff]](graemlins/jerkoff.gif)
![[Nut Kick]](graemlins/nutkick.gif)
![[Violent]](graemlins/violent.gif)
![[Thumbs Up]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Fingers Crossed]](graemlins/fingersx.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Cry]](cry.gif)