Gun Control Debate thread

[Sassicaia]

Originally Posted by Capita2JZGTE

Snowboards are not a must either. Apprx. 40 people die a year. Should be ban recreational winter sports because people are dieing from them?
39,000 Americans died from vehicle accidents in 2010. FAR more than the amount of homicides where firearms were used. Automobiles are also "not needed". Why don't we ban those as well? See how ridiculous these laws sound when they actually apply to a hobby or item that you use and love?

I cant believe im even replying to this, but here it goes *puts Captain Obvious Uniform on* People dont walk into public areas with snowboards in their hands and beat 30 people to death.

Come on you gotta do better then that.

[StreetDoc]

Originally Posted by Capita2JZGTE

Jesus dude you are MISSING the point. There is no gun problem. There is a problem with clinically insane people committing these murders. How is that so hard to understand?
And so what if some of those self defense cases weren't against other humans?
The fact that they were able to use a tool to save their life should be enough reason.

The problem with you anti gun people is that you refuse to accept the fact that these bad people will use any tool they can to accomplish their agenda, whether it's a knife, a bat, a box cutter, a commercial jet, etc.

And donuts I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree with you throwing out the possibility of demographics coming into play, per capita or not, it does make a difference in peoples mindset and personality as a whole.

+1

Demographics make up a HUGE difference. Look at a map of Chicago and look where all the murders occur.

[Capita2JZGTE]

Originally Posted by Sassicaia

I cant believe im even replying to this, but here it goes *puts Captain Obvious Uniform on* People dont walk into public areas with snowboards in their hands and beat 30 people to death.

Come on you gotta do better then that.

Why is it that you only replied to the sarcastic part of my post? No reasonable argument for the real facts below that?

Captain obvious also says that guns don't grow legs and walk into schools shooting everything up.
Crazy people are the ones going into these places, killing people. Your "point" (if there even is one) means nothing.

There is only ONE constant in every murder there ever was, and that constant is a human. Guns are simply one of many variables in the equation.

[Sassicaia]

Originally Posted by Capita2JZGTE

Why is it that you only replied to the sarcastic part of my post? No reasonable argument for the real facts below that paragraph?

Captain obvious also says that guns don't grow legs and walk into schools shooting everything up.
Crazy people are the ones going into these places, killing people. Your "point" (if there even is one) means nothing.

ugh...you edited your post with the rest after i quote...thats why, but if you want me to shit on the rest of your logic here it goes.

Originally Posted by Capita2JZGTE

You don't blame drunk driving deaths on vehicles, you blame them on the drunk retards going around driving.
How is this not relative to insane people going around killing people, who happen to be using firearms? How is it then blamed on the firearms and not the people using them?

Like drunk drivers and cars, we dont want to arm crazy people with guns, and your 2nd amendment arms crazy people too easily with guns that are too dangerous. If you want me to post examples i can

Its too easy to get guns, and the guns you have access too are simply to dangerous and easily concealable. The US doesnt have more crazy people then the rest of the world, you guys just arm them, hence all the gun related killings committed by nut jobs.

[Cr0_Reps_Smit]

Originally Posted by Sassicaia

What it doesnt say is how many of those self defense situations were people protecting themselves from over people with guns (which im guessing is the case more often then not). What that says is the problem is already seriously code red. Carrying guns as a solution to control a gun problem is stupid beyond belief. In fact, didnt virgina tech allow students to carry guns after that shooting? FYI.... the whole world did one of these when that was announced.

while yes, they may have been protecting them selves from other people with guns, how much do you want to bet the people who were the ATTACKERS and not the people who were protecting them selves got those guns illegally?

also do you really think that if there were virginia tech students who were legally allowed to carry a side arm and had proper training that those shootings wouldnt have turned out any different? the fact that it's known that people may return fire alone is a huge deterrent. i would love to hear of ONE mass shooting that happened in a area that open carry/concealed carry is allowed. those teachers at the school were guns aren't allowed sure didn't have a chance.

[Capita2JZGTE]

Originally Posted by Sassicaia

ugh...you edited your post with the rest after i quote...thats why, but if you want me to shit on the rest of your logic here it goes.



Like drunk drivers and cars, we dont want to arm crazy people with guns, and your 2nd amendment arms crazy people too easily with guns that are too dangerous. If you want me to post examples i can

Its too easy to get guns, and the guns you have access too are simply to dangerous and easily concealable. The US doesnt have more crazy people then the rest of the world, you guys just arm them, hence all the gun related killings committed by nut jobs.

The only thing I edited in was that quote for bones. So false.
Explain to me how the hell do soo many people get multiple DUI's even after having their license revoked? By your logic, taking away someones license will keep them from drunk driving. Well that logic is a fail."1.41 million drivers were arrested in 2010 for driving under the influence."
"About one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol are repeat offenders."
That is a quote from the mothers against drunk driving website.
Again proving your logic doesn't work.

[Cr0_Reps_Smit]

just to add some info here and some examples of potential mass shootings that were stopped by law abiding citizens with guns.

April 2012, Aurora CO Church shooting stopped by off-duty cop in congregation
Aurora Church Shooting: Police Say Congregation Was Likely Not The Target In Shooting

March 2012, NC Church shooting stopped by armed citizen
Sheriff: Man kicks in Boiling Springs church door, points shotgun at pastor | GoUpstate.com

December 2007, CO Church shooting stopped by armed security guard
Guard saved untold lives, officials say - Los Angeles Times

April 2012, Salt Lake City mass stabbing:stopped by armed citizen:
Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store - ABC4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News

January 2002, Appalachian School of Law shooting stopped by armed citizens:
Appalachian School of Law shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sassicaia]

Originally Posted by Cr0_Reps_Smit

while yes, they may have been protecting them selves from other people with guns, how much do you want to bet the people who were the ATTACKERS and not the people who were protecting them selves got those guns illegally?

also do you really think that if there were virginia tech students who were legally allowed to carry a side arm and had proper training that those shootings wouldnt have turned out any different? the fact that it's known that people may return fire alone is a huge deterrent. i would love to hear of ONE mass shooting that happened in a area that open carry/concealed carry is allowed. those teachers at the school were guns aren't allowed sure didn't have a chance.

The problem with the VT incident is this



Those are the two weapons used, and the guy who didnt it didnt give a shit if he lived or died. He wanted to kill as many people as possible, so he would have done it if people had guns or not.

Without access to those to hand guns, there would be no reason to arm people to protect them selfs against people who have those.




The logic here is making me ill.

[Capita2JZGTE]

Originally Posted by Sassicaia

The problem with the VT incident is this



Those are the two weapons used, and the guy who didnt it didnt give a shit if he lived or died. He wanted to kill as many people as possible, so he would have done it if people had guns or not.

Without access to those to hand guns, there would be no reason to arm people to protect them selfs against people who have those.




The logic here is making me ill.

Are you blind to any type of reasoning? Guns aren't the only method of killing people. You don't think he wouldn't have used a different tool? Assuming he couldn't get a hold of some guns on the black market(if they were outlawed)?
Again with the logic you use we should ban anything that has the capability of killing someone, because if we do that then all murders will stop. right?

[Cr0_Reps_Smit]

Originally Posted by Sassicaia

The problem with the VT incident is this



Those are the two weapons used, and the guy who didnt it didnt give a shit if he lived or died. He wanted to kill as many people as possible, so he would have done it if people had guns or not.

Without access to those to hand guns, there would be no reason to arm people to protect them selfs against people who have those.




The logic here is making me ill.

if you use you're own logic, the guy who did this didn't give a shit, so what makes you think having no access to guns would've changed? how easy could it have been for him to make a bomb and blow shit up?

also whether or not the people there had guns would make a big difference, i only said the determent was part of it, the other part wouldve been some one shooting him in the head before he killed as many as he did