gun control

[Impenitent]

freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/0 … tance.html

several interesting true stories about how an armed public prevents mass murder…

-Imp

[Mr_Reasonable]

I think there should be federal concealed weapons permits.

[Impenitent]

do you know how difficult it is to conceal a federal weapon?

-Imp

[Carleas]

So, you’re arguing that because guns are legal, and any psychopath with a grudge can buy one, we need to make guns easier to purchase, so that people who aren’t psychopaths can defend themselves. This sets up a delightful pun: You’re suggesting that we fight firearms with firearms!

The article references 4 cases where, ‘thanks to armed resistance’, a total of 13 people were killed by guns, and an additional 19 people were wounded. What a fascinating spin that is, to say that guns should be considered the heroes in these cases. Why should the killers have been armed in the first place?

[ravencry4all]

Carleas

I think I can help you understand it.
Guns destroy society.
You sure think it is a bad thing but you see ‘Society’ is socialist just like Hitler.
If you follow the Iraq war threads you find that the real reason for that one is profit only and it wasn’t me who said that.
Ergo we conclude that selling guns is for profit only. The rest is just marketing.

In my reality this is the smoking gun to prove that capitalism destroys society.

Raven

[Impenitent]

@Carleas

So, you’re arguing that because guns are legal, and any psychopath with a grudge can buy one, we need to make guns easier to purchase, so that people who aren’t psychopaths can defend themselves. This sets up a delightful pun: You’re suggesting that we fight firearms with firearms!

it is no pun. killers who want to kill will do so. making it easier for people to defend themselves against these wackos, especially when the police are no where to be found, is the proper solution. are you suggesting that everyone be a willing target with “kill me, I’m unarmed” written across their back? oh please don’t kill me mr psycho or the liberal socialist idiots will be angry and give you therapy after you kill dozens of people. screw that. kill the bastard. and making it harder for people to exersize their constitutional right to defend themselves is not the answer.

The article references 4 cases where, ‘thanks to armed resistance’, a total of 13 people were killed by guns, and an additional 19 people were wounded. What a fascinating spin that is, to say that guns should be considered the heroes in these cases. Why should the killers have been armed in the first place?

the killers didn’t obey the laws in the first place. all gun laws do is prevent honest perople from defending themselves.

-Imp

[Impenitent]

@ravencry4all

Carleas

I think I can help you understand it.
Guns destroy society.
You sure think it is a bad thing but you see ‘Society’ is socialist just like Hitler.
If you follow the Iraq war threads you find that the real reason for that one is profit only and it wasn’t me who said that.
Ergo we conclude that selling guns is for profit only. The rest is just marketing.

In my reality this is the smoking gun to prove that capitalism destroys society.

Raven

I, for one, am glad everyone does not participate in your reality…

-Imp

[Carleas]

1. The VT shooter bought his guns legally. He didn’t buy them black market.
2. Where do blackmarket guns come from? Are arms manufactures risking their huge legitimate businesses in order to supply a few rinky-dink pistols to street thugs? More likely, guns purchased legally are stolen or sold, and are thus entered into the black market.
3. Killers who want to kill might do so, but killing with a knife or a hammer is on a completely different scale than killing with a semi-automatic.
4. Gun sales might be the stuff of dark alleys, but gun production is not. Making an effective gun is a pretty big deal, and it is something that is both easy to regulate, and something which when regulated prevents everyone from getting a gun, not just honest people.
5. Drop the rhetoric: politcal position has not been used as grounds for my arguent; I have not made any suggestion about what we should do to mass murderers; I’ve not even suggested whether I’m for or against the death penalty. Given this, you are making a number of straw-men arguments and playing on punditry. If you find yourself on the losing side of an argument, why not try to learn from it?

[Impenitent]

@Carleas

1. The VT shooter bought his guns legally. He didn’t buy them black market.

irrelevant. he broke the law prohibiting them on school

1. Where do blackmarket guns come from? Are arms manufactures risking their huge legitimate businesses in order to supply a few rinky-dink pistols to street thugs? More likely, guns purchased legally are stolen or sold, and are thus entered into the black market.

irrelevant

1. Killers who want to kill might do so, but killing with a knife or a hammer is on a completely different scale than killing with a semi-automatic.

and being killed with such (or anything that could be used as a weapon, death by pencil is still dead) is still the fault of the liberal democRATS who will not allow you to purchase legally a gun with which to defend yourself.

1. Gun sales might be the stuff of dark alleys, but gun production is not. Making an effective gun is a pretty big deal, and it is something that is both easy to regulate, and something which when regulated prevents everyone from getting a gun, not just honest people.

and constitutionally protected against liberal democRAT regulation… and no, it doesn’t prevent everyone from getting a gun…

1. Drop the rhetoric: politcal position has not been used as grounds for my arguent;

a violation of the second ammendment is not political?

I have not made any suggestion about what we should do to mass murderers;

did I say you did? not at all. but the liberal democRATS certainly have.

I’ve not even suggested whether I’m for or against the death penalty.

irrelevant, I am speaking of an immediate death penalty in self defence.

Given this, you are making a number of straw-men arguments and playing on punditry.

hardly.

If you find yourself on the losing side of an argument, why not try to learn from it?

I haven’t found myself on that side in this argument.

-Imp

[Carleas]

Irrelevant? Irrelevant!? How is the fact that illegal guns ultimately come from the legal sale of arms irrelevant to a discussion of whether gun sales should be legal? How is the fact that the VT shooter’s guns were purchased legally irrelevant to your statement that “all gun laws do is prevent honest perople from defending themselves”? Clearly, stricter gun laws would have prevented that person from purchasing a gun law, thus invalidating your statement.

Restricting the production of guns is only considered unconstitutional by conservativeFUCKING-RETARDS and strict-constrcutionistUNINTELLIGENT-POMPOUS-ASSHATS. Ooo, caps and insults to vaguely related groups bolster your arguments soooo much.

[Mr_Reasonable]

Those things happen because the police aren’t doing thier jobs. You can’t expect law abiding citizens to disarm in the face of that reality.

[Impenitent]

@Carleas

Irrelevant? Irrelevant!?

yes. irrelevant

How is the fact that illegal guns ultimately come from the legal sale of arms irrelevant to a discussion of whether gun sales should be legal?

honest citizens are the only ones effected by draconian gun laws.

How is the fact that the VT shooter’s guns were purchased legally irrelevant to your statement that “all gun laws do is prevent honest perople from defending themselves”?

the fact that he purchased them legally has nothing to do with the fact that he broke the law by carring them on campus. the fact that he purchased them legally has nothing to do with the fact that democRAT gun laws prevented the victims from defending themselves.

Clearly, stricter gun laws would have prevented that person from purchasing a gun law, thus invalidating your statement.

no. different gun laws might have prevented him. but no amount of laws prevented him from carring the guns on campus or from killing people. he broke those laws too. the only thing the laws prevented was the ability of the citizens to defend themselves. period.

Restricting the production of guns is only considered unconstitutional by conservativeFUCKING-RETARDS

as well as the supreme court. and isn’t it a shame that there are sooo many “fucking retards” who vote against the democRATS?!?

and strict-constrcutionistUNINTELLIGENT-POMPOUS-ASSHATS.

LOL… exactly… the constitution is a living document… it has no meaning… disarm everyone, ban alcohol and bring back slavery… let’s vote on that one too…

Ooo, caps and insults to vaguely related groups bolster your arguments soooo much.

yes, they are quite effective aren’t they?

stick to the facts. the gun laws prevented people from defending themselves against the murderer, and that’s all they prevented.

-Imp

[Mr_Reasonable]

Once I went to pick up my friend from this crack house and when I got inside there was a crazy fiend with a knife stabbing the walls and chasing some chick around because he thought she stole his crack. I had to threaten him with a shotgun from the trunk of the car just to extract my friend, and we weren’t even involved in all the crack stealing madness.

[Impenitent]

I hate it when that happens…

-Imp

[jagermeister330]

Does anyone remember the Kellogg-Briand pact? It outlawed war. Did that stop war? No, of course not. Prohibiting drinking did not stop drinking. Prohibiting smoking marijuana has not stopped people from smoking it. Prohibiting handguns will not stop people from owning or using handguns.

Oh, and here’s a fun fact: The vast majority of people who own handguns don’t go on rampages at college universities.

[creation_imperfect]

Imp, can I point out that in every story mentioned in the link you originally posted, lack of gun control laws was not what allowed people to be armed and stop the mass murderers? In every case it was citizens breaking the law to the same extent as the original shooter. If with the law, the situation swings to both sides, what makes you think that without it it won’t do the same thing? The normal people out for self-protection would be armed, but so would more sociopaths. I honestly don’t see how you can always overlook something like that just to make your argument against “democRATS” work. If you’re gonna ignore the obvious for these threads you might as well post a thread that says “The democRATS kept us from exercising our manifest destiny on the rest of the world in the 1800’s and so they’re responsible for all the attacks America has ever been subjected to!!!”

[Impenitent]

@creation imperfect

Imp, can I point out that in every story mentioned in the link you originally posted, lack of gun control laws was not what allowed people to be armed and stop the mass murderers?

that is exactly what allowed them to exersize their second ammendment rights. not having to contend with a bunch of democRAT restrictions on freedom and constitutional rights.

In every case it was citizens breaking the law to the same extent as the original shooter.

it certainly was not. please list some examples of this supposed law breaking.

If with the law, the situation swings to both sides, what makes you think that without it it won’t do the same thing? The normal people out for self-protection would be armed, but so would more sociopaths.

no, they would not. if the laws stay the same, no more sociopaths would be armed.

I honestly don’t see how you can always overlook something like that just to make your argument against “democRATS” work.

I overlooked nothing.

If you’re gonna ignore the obvious for these threads you might as well post a thread that says “The democRATS kept us from exercising our manifest destiny on the rest of the world in the 1800’s and so they’re responsible for all the attacks America has ever been subjected to!!!”

yes, I am sure they did. but as a victim of manifest destiny, I find your suggestion quite offensive.

-Imp

[creation_imperfect]

@Impenitent

@creation imperfect

Imp, can I point out that in every story mentioned in the link you originally posted, lack of gun control laws was not what allowed people to be armed and stop the mass murderers?

that is exactly what allowed them to exersize their second ammendment rights. not having to contend with a bunch of democRAT restrictions on freedom and constitutional rights.

My point is that there are gun control laws and people were still armed. I myself am always armed for these situations, but I appreciate the laws heavily because I understand that not everyone is smart enough to warrant the right to carry a gun around. People are panicky and will shoot the cardboard civilian as fast as the cardboard criminal.

In every case it was citizens breaking the law to the same extent as the original shooter.

it certainly was not. please list some examples of this supposed law breaking.

Shooting a gun at people in a crowd is against the law. The American law doesn’t often smile on good samaritans.

If with the law, the situation swings to both sides, what makes you think that without it it won’t do the same thing? The normal people out for self-protection would be armed, but so would more sociopaths.

no, they would not. if the laws stay the same, no more sociopaths would be armed.

Once again you’ve missed my point. I’m saying that laws have no authority other than that which we give them. Every law is only a suggestion or a guideline. People can, and do, ignore laws. Guns are commonly sold to people who should not be able to get them, and good people commonly walk around with concealed weapons (like me.) There will always be a balance between those who are armed for self-protection and those who are armed to kill. I’m gonna add another point in here that being armed also has no authority you don’t give it. If you are not in a mindset to protect yourself or others, you could have an AK-47 and be killed with a butter knife.

I honestly don’t see how you can always overlook something like that just to make your argument against “democRATS” work.

I overlooked nothing.

The evidence would suggest otherwise… you’re not always right, Imp, you’ll have to come to terms with it eventually.

If you’re gonna ignore the obvious for these threads you might as well post a thread that says “The democRATS kept us from exercising our manifest destiny on the rest of the world in the 1800’s and so they’re responsible for all the attacks America has ever been subjected to!!!”

[b]yes, I am sure they did. but as a victim of manifest destiny, I find your suggestion quite offensive.

-Imp[/b]

Well I don’t mean to offend, unless you find being called wrong every once in a while offensive. Personally, I find it offensive that you always use the term “democRATS” and lump everyone into two categories all the time without stopping to consider that some Republicans are stupid, some Democrats are smart, and nothing ever is nor can ever be completely black and white.

[Impenitent]

@creation imperfect

@Impenitent

@creation imperfect

Imp, can I point out that in every story mentioned in the link you originally posted, lack of gun control laws was not what allowed people to be armed and stop the mass murderers?

that is exactly what allowed them to exersize their second ammendment rights. not having to contend with a bunch of democRAT restrictions on freedom and constitutional rights.

My point is that there are gun control laws and people were still armed. I myself am always armed for these situations, but I appreciate the laws heavily because I understand that not everyone is smart enough to warrant the right to carry a gun around. People are panicky and will shoot the cardboard civilian as fast as the cardboard criminal.

no, they were not armed. if they were armed, the killer would not have gotten to kill as many. democRAT gun laws prevented joe citizen from defending himself by exersizing his constitutional rights. an armed society is a polite society.

In every case it was citizens breaking the law to the same extent as the original shooter.

it certainly was not. please list some examples of this supposed law breaking.

Shooting a gun at people in a crowd is against the law. The American law doesn’t often smile on good samaritans.

that’s exactly what the killer did. defending oneself isn’t and shouldn’t be illegal.

If with the law, the situation swings to both sides, what makes you think that without it it won’t do the same thing? The normal people out for self-protection would be armed, but so would more sociopaths.

no, they would not. if the laws stay the same, no more sociopaths would be armed.

Once again you’ve missed my point. I’m saying that laws have no authority other than that which we give them. Every law is only a suggestion or a guideline. People can, and do, ignore laws. Guns are commonly sold to people who should not be able to get them, and good people commonly walk around with concealed weapons (like me.) There will always be a balance between those who are armed for self-protection and those who are armed to kill. I’m gonna add another point in here that being armed also has no authority you don’t give it. If you are not in a mindset to protect yourself or others, you could have an AK-47 and be killed with a butter knife.

I missed nothing… they (the laws) don’t even have that. not enough good people walk around with guns because of democRAT totalitarians who don’t want you to be able to exersize your constitutional rights. the balance is too far in favor of the killer as it stands. if you are not in a mindset to protect yourself, eventhough you can, you shouldn’t carry. but moreover, you shouldn’t be prevented from carrying either when you legally can do so.

I honestly don’t see how you can always overlook something like that just to make your argument against “democRATS” work.

I overlooked nothing.

The evidence would suggest otherwise… you’re not always right, Imp, you’ll have to come to terms with it eventually.

I never said I was always right. however, on this topic, I am

If you’re gonna ignore the obvious for these threads you might as well post a thread that says “The democRATS kept us from exercising our manifest destiny on the rest of the world in the 1800’s and so they’re responsible for all the attacks America has ever been subjected to!!!”

[b]yes, I am sure they did. but as a victim of manifest destiny, I find your suggestion quite offensive.

-Imp[/b]

Well I don’t mean to offend, unless you find being called wrong every once in a while offensive. Personally, I find it offensive that you always use the term “democRATS” and lump everyone into two categories all the time without stopping to consider that some Republicans are stupid, some Democrats are smart, and nothing ever is nor can ever be completely black and white.

call me wrong all you like. you haven’t proven me wrong however… and your offense is misplaced. not all members of the democratic party are democRATS and I have never said that they were.

context is essential…

-Imp

[Carleas]

Facts? Just a few:

Where do illegal handguns come from?
“Average number of firearm thefts that occur every year in the US: 341,000”

Why should greedy conservatives who only care about themselves care about cun control?
“Total cost of firearm assault injury and death in 1992: $63.4 billion”

Why might it be advisable to once again revise our understanding of the Constitution, and possibly even alter it, again, revising a previous change* to the Constitution?
"Percentage of Americans who feel that ‘the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict’: 62 "

Source

*a·mend·ment /əˈmɛndmənt/ [uh-mend-muhnt]
–noun

1. the act of amending or the state of being amended.
2. an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.
3. a change made by correction, addition, or deletion: The editors made few amendments to the manuscript.
4. Horticulture. a soil-conditioning substance that promotes plant growth indirectly by improving such soil qualities as porosity, moisture retention, and pH balance.