Another mass shooting in America

Grand Moff Tim

Some call me... Tim
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
7,318
Reaction score
1,493
Location
Cheongju, SK
Alright so how about "all things that were designed for killing human beings"? Not that I'm advocating such a thing but still, there's a distinction. A bow and arrow or a long rifle carry utility as a tool for hunting, which for some, is a necessity for survival. As far as a "bow and arrow" that's designed for killing people, the one that comes to mind is the crossbow and that is (at least was...?) banned.

Not that I think all guns should be banned but (at the risk of putting words in somebody's mouth) I think the argument is about guns that are designed to excel at killing people.

That seems more to the point, yes, and harder to argue against.

I can't speak for any specific states, but I think crossbows are still perfectly legal most places.

I think it's odd how you seem to have a pretty balanced opinion on the issue, but you only chime in to debate the semantics of statements by gun control advocates in this thread. :scratch:

Do I? :lol:

It isn't intentional, I promise. If anything, it could be a subconscious bias toward either side of the issue. The red blooded ex-military American side of me that pops up in this subforum so often does bristle whenever gun control debates arise, sure, so perhaps I'm subconsciously leveling most of my arguments against the gun control crowd. On the other hand, I agree with most of the points the more reasonable gun control advocates (ie not the "ban all guns" crowd) make, so perhaps I'm poking at the semantics of their arguments to hammer them out and make them stronger, more defensible, like tempering steel. Probably a little bit of both, I suspect :lol:.

I do think I've at least tried to point out to those saying "We can't ban all guns" that nobody in this thread is arguing that we should once or twice, but I don't feel like going through all 18 pages of the thread to see if you're right that most of my arguments are nitpicking the gun control side of things, so I'll take your word for it :lol:.
 

habicore_5150

El Psy Congroove
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
1,329
Reaction score
217
Location
Crossville, TN

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
That is rather ridiculous. If we are going to talk psychology I'd argue the opposite, that violent video games in many way prevent serious violence in the real world (act out bizarre fantasy and what not). Reminds me of that Dungeons and Dragons movie that came out a long time ago (mom wouldn't let me buy Balder's Gate after that :(). Won't solve anything at all. If anything it will make the notion of playing violent games more provocative to teenagers with overbearing parents.

Whether people agree with gun regulation or not we can at least agree that the topic makes sense. Banning or destroying video games/ movies makes absolutely no sense at all. If we are arguing about the Bill of Rights (something I have a feeling those people in a way are doing since they aren't out destroying weapons, but games) then doing things like this article suggests is in a way a violation of the first amendment. They are doing so willingly so it technically isn't, but you get my point.
 

Jakke

Pretty wisdomous
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
4,365
Reaction score
773
Location
In a van... DOWN' BY THE RIVER!
This is too much for words... It takes a special kind of asshole to see this tragedy and think "hey, this must be actors hired to portray grieving families to enact stricter gun laws to make the US ripe for the NWO to take over!". People sometimes ask why I despise the crew around Alex Jones and the NWO/conspiracy-people, this is why. They treat reality like it's some sort of fucking Clancy-novel. Paranoid dipshits...



I completely respect if you do not want to view this and give this fuck credibility through views... I would however appreciate that you show our collective distaste through a dislike if you do watch it. This dumbfuckery has gone far enough, and that bar is far too green as it is now.
 

Fat-Elf

Banned
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,734
Reaction score
126
Location
Finland
Did anyone hear there were a new shooting in the same town as the Batman-theater shooting in summer? Three people were killed among the killer.
 

J7string

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
388
Reaction score
161
Location
NY
I need to clarify a few things I've seen...

No one complains about knives or bows and arrows because no one commits mass killings with these weapons. A bow and it's arrows are too bulky, and take too much time to make ready on the fly. Knives are easily concealed, but still too much effort in situations like mass murder.

Guns are just and easy, and attainable solution in cases like this because A: everyone knows, or can learn how to shoot a gun easily. B: We've become so desensitized to gun violence, to a person who's mentally unstable, what can be done in a video game or in a movie can seem simple enough in reality.

People cry so much about the second ammendment, and the arguements go both ways... BUT as a reader of the Constitution, the section of the great document itself clearly states that any natural citizen of the United States has the right to bear arms in a militia to ensure a free state, and that right should not be infringed upon. Meaning, all processes, permits, and other laws are unconstitutional. Granted that there are fewer militias than there were back in the 1700's and 1800's, and the interperetation of the second ammendment has gone to the dogs... I feel a radical change must be done constitutionally through the ammendmant process so all the modern issues concerning guns can be dealt with the proper way.

BUT... people are stupid and I don't see that happening, or the government abiding to the solemn word of the constitution anyway. So we're gonna continue to be screwed and watch hundreds more people die at the hands of psychopaths because no one knows how to do things logically and properly.
 
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
117
Reaction score
1
Location
Phx, AZ
I need to clarify a few things I've seen...

No one complains about knives or bows and arrows because no one commits mass killings with these weapons. A bow and it's arrows are too bulky, and take too much time to make ready on the fly. Knives are easily concealed, but still too much effort in situations like mass murder.

Guns are just and easy, and attainable solution in cases like this because A: everyone knows, or can learn how to shoot a gun easily. B: We've become so desensitized to gun violence, to a person who's mentally unstable, what can be done in a video game or in a movie can seem simple enough in reality.

People cry so much about the second ammendment, and the arguements go both ways... BUT as a reader of the Constitution, the section of the great document itself clearly states that any natural citizen of the United States has the right to bear arms in a militia to ensure a free state, and that right should not be infringed upon. Meaning, all processes, permits, and other laws are unconstitutional. Granted that there are fewer militias than there were back in the 1700's and 1800's, and the interperetation of the second ammendment has gone to the dogs... I feel a radical change must be done constitutionally through the ammendmant process so all the modern issues concerning guns can be dealt with the proper way.

BUT... people are stupid and I don't see that happening, or the government abiding to the solemn word of the constitution anyway. So we're gonna continue to be screwed and watch hundreds more people die at the hands of psychopaths because no one knows how to do things logically and properly.

:poop:
 

Grand Moff Tim

Some call me... Tim
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
7,318
Reaction score
1,493
Location
Cheongju, SK
I need to clarify a few things I've seen...

No one complains about knives or bows and arrows because no one commits mass killings with these weapons.

I know, that's why I said that very thing in the post where I first brought it up.

To reiterate/clarify the point of my having brought it up: I was trying to point out that merely saying "Guns were designed for killing things" as a tick against them isn't accomplishing very much, since there are other perfectly legal, largely unregulated things that are, too. As was later pointed out, a much more productive argument is saying that "modern guns are designed for killing many things very quickly." Unless I'm forgetting something else, guns are the only legal thing that fits that bill.

Someone points out something I'm forgetting in 3... 2... 1...
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
21,234
Reaction score
2,494
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canadia
Why are you arguing semantics? :lol:


Its pretty clear:

a) Nobody really has any good reason to own a fully automatic weapon.
b) More guns per capita = more mass shootings.

Why are some people so adamant about protecting a redundant right?
 

Grand Moff Tim

Some call me... Tim
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
7,318
Reaction score
1,493
Location
Cheongju, SK
Why are you arguing semantics? :lol:

Because semantics are important in debate?

EDIT: And I wasn't arguing them so much as I was pointing out that more clarification was needed for the point people were trying to make to be valid. I had no interest in using that to try to bolster or weaken either side of the issue.

EDIT the 2nd: This particular debate has proven particularly sticky about semantics and definitions anyways, or it'd be alot more straightforward. If we knew exactly what the framers of the constitution meant by "bear arms," alot of debate could be avoided. We don't, though, so all we can do is try to provide our own frameworks for the debates using our own definitions. They've already tried with the Assault Rifle ban a few years ago, but people complained about how they defined Assault Rifles when that went down, too.
 

Watty

Naturally Cynical
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
3,811
Reaction score
386
Location
Renton, Washington
Just saw this earlier this morning. There aren't words to describe this guy...thought Piers did the best he could in handling him though.
 

Randy

✝✝✝
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
12,653
Location
The Electric City, NY
The sad thing being that Alex Jones' part sounded like any random 14 minute snippet from his show.

Piers is an elitist, ratings obsessed douche most of the time but I have to agree with getting Jones on air infront of the general public, instead of his regular following.

Since I posted this on MG and somebody said something already, I'll preemptively mention that I know Jones doesn't represent the "typical gun owner". He does, however, represent exactly the kind of person I fear having unrestricted access to them. I think Dershowitz is spot on in saying Jones is the kind of guy that, if you were at his house and got in a yelling match, you'd have to fear getting shot.
 

Watty

Naturally Cynical
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
3,811
Reaction score
386
Location
Renton, Washington
T that I know Jones doesn't represent the "typical gun owner". He does, however, represent exactly the kind of person I fear having unrestricted access to them. I think Dershowitz is spot on in saying Jones is the kind of guy that, if you were at his house and got in a yelling match, you'd have to fear getting shot.

This, so much this.
 


Top