Orlando shooting, thoughts?

  • 354 Replies
  • 54272 Views
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #330 on: August 05, 2016, 02:50:25 PM »
Which cyanide is only beaten by shotgun by two percent. If 1% isn't enough to justify self defense then 2% isn't enough to ban guns. When it comes down to it there's either no benefit either way or there's a benefit to owning guns. Either way I win. Why implement a useless law?
Not quite. How many of the unarmed victims were  attacked a second time compared to the armed victims? How hang of the armed victims was killed compared to unarmed? Plus as I stated before guerrilla warfare, even against modern technology, works. A large portion of the military are civilians and another large portion of the uniformed military would refuse to obey a confiscation.
That's the problem. We don't have too many natural predators especially on the east coast.
Those lives are dependent on the gun industry. Aside from job making without guns are military and police are less affective. Not having an affective military and police leaves us exposed to a more aggressive country.
Are you just ignoring everything I say now? Accessibility is just as important as deadliness to suicide: cyanide isn't exactly what I'd call accessible. Guerilla warfare works to exhaust not overthrow. A military who won't obey their oath to serve their Commander in Chief is not a safe military. And given plenty of other countries seem to get guns for their military just fine (and police really don't need that many guns, America's plainly make a mess of them) that last bit's hardly an issue.
And we've been over multiple benefits: Australia's total lack of mass shootings since enacting gun control, dramatically lower crime rates in countries with gun control, faster declining crime after gun control, a removal of the 'accidental' shootings... As well as indirect benefits such as not needing every police officer to go around armed and the news-filling murders that result, for one.

Quote
That was one link about open carry. I've linked to other sites about concealed carry. Here's another example.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
It was your summary of the facts. (And if you really want to look at your links from last time: you had a student paper, one that said the opposite of what you claimed, and one by an author with a terrible track record and made no claim about facts). And you really might need to think about why all your key results stem from clearly motivated sources, while I've been able to find a number of neutral studies with neutral sources. I'm still struggling to work out what half of that one means; the graphs are incoherent and definitions are woefully lacking. Plus neutral sources, like the one you yourself provided, plainly demonstrate there's no noticeable change in crime rate.

Quote
Its fine to investigate shootings with a proper warrant, but don't assume everybody is guilty until proven innocent.
They're not investigating things without cause, it just helps to be, you know, capable of actually investigating when the need arises. Knowing who bought a gun is the most basic thing to expect from a law enforcement agency, and it doesn't impact on your rights in the slightest, until your gun is used for a crime. For crying out loud, cars are more heavily regulated than guns in the US, does that seriously not bother you?!

Quote
They should only be infringed by either due process or if not old enough.
So, it can be infringed. It's that simple. The 'shall NOT' is not absolute .

Quote
By registering your forced to testify the fact that you have a gun and by searches and seizures if they find a unregistered gun they'll confiscate it without due process.
They'd still need a warrant to search your house for an unregistered gun, that's not going to change. And the fifth amendment is to prevent you from testifying in order to incriminate yourself only, people are often still compelled to testify (and held in contempt if they don't) so even if that was a reasonable depiction of the situation, it doesn't violate the fifth amendment because owning a gun is not incriminating. Using that in a crime is incriminating, but it's no more a fifth amendment violation than having a photo of you circulated.
As for being confiscated without due process, given that it would be a crime to possess an unregistered gun, the situation is analogous to having a stolen gun. What would you propose happen then?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #331 on: August 06, 2016, 05:46:23 AM »
That's because by you committing that crime you infringe on another persons rights. How is me owning certain types of weapons infringe upon your right?

It puts in grave peril the lives of others, thus violating the right to life.

Cars do a better job at it. The mere ownership of a weapon doesn't endanger your life in any way.

Cars are used to go from a place to another, and the deaths caused by cars are accidents. Guns are made specifically to hurt.

This may sound crude but why should that matter? A death is a death either way and by taking guns you only allow people to switch to other means to kill each other. In fact you may even increase it because now the little old lady who before at least had a .38 revolver to give her the best chance of surviving an attack is now exposed to any young punk who's bored and looking for trouble. Besides, hurting someone may actually be a good thing when you're being attacked.

It matters because deaths are avoidable if you drive well. Guns, on the other hand, are made to hurt. And no, it won't increase, because the old lady would have killed her aggressor if given the chance and gun. Taking all guns out of the streets is even better than letting everyone harm others with such ease.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #332 on: August 06, 2016, 10:29:40 AM »

It matters because deaths are avoidable if you drive well. Guns, on the other hand, are made to hurt. And no, it won't increase, because the old lady would have killed her aggressor if given the chance and gun. Taking all guns out of the streets is even better than letting everyone harm others with such ease.

Holy mackerel....  you sure you are not living in a fantasy world of sunshine and buttercups?? People will always find a way to kill each other...you can remove all weapons, blunt objects, salt and spices. Then you will just have a massive spike in martial arts, MMA, and the 5 finger death Punch.

Humans have a vital flaw and it has nothing to do with guns or any other type of weapon. The only way to fix anything is mentally within ourselves and that is very difficult and takes work and determination most are not willing to dedicate. So it is much easier to blame the superficial things, then blame other superficial things when removing the previous didn't work.

Simple fact, people have murdered other people, people are currently murdering other people, and people will always murder other people...saying that will stop is as likely as animals not fighting over their territory. It could happen, at least brought down to a minimal occurrence, however I have already stated what it would take and the likely hood I see that happening.

However, someone who lives in a magic meadow of rainbows, or someone that is ok with letting someone murder their own birthing mother, I don't expect this concept to be grasp.

Nor will there ever be any apology for me attempting to be a step ahead of people with ill intent, or protecting anyone from a person with ill intent. For every action...


For the record, I won't ever consider you, or anyone else, less human than me. We're all the same, with the same rights and the same duties.

For the record I will always return the favor...UNLESS you try to harm or murder a loved one, friend, myself, or anyone generally around my vicinity...however, seeing you won't squish a fly, I think we will be safe here lol.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2016, 12:43:24 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #333 on: August 07, 2016, 04:17:02 AM »

It matters because deaths are avoidable if you drive well. Guns, on the other hand, are made to hurt. And no, it won't increase, because the old lady would have killed her aggressor if given the chance and gun. Taking all guns out of the streets is even better than letting everyone harm others with such ease.

Holy mackerel....  you sure you are not living in a fantasy world of sunshine and buttercups?? People will always find a way to kill each other...you can remove all weapons, blunt objects, salt and spices. Then you will just have a massive spike in martial arts, MMA, and the 5 finger death Punch.

Humans have a vital flaw and it has nothing to do with guns or any other type of weapon. The only way to fix anything is mentally within ourselves and that is very difficult and takes work and determination most are not willing to dedicate. So it is much easier to blame the superficial things, then blame other superficial things when removing the previous didn't work.

Simple fact, people have murdered other people, people are currently murdering other people, and people will always murder other people...saying that will stop is as likely as animals not fighting over their territory. It could happen, at least brought down to a minimal occurrence, however I have already stated what it would take and the likely hood I see that happening.

However, someone who lives in a magic meadow of rainbows, or someone that is ok with letting someone murder their own birthing mother, I don't expect this concept to be grasp.

Nor will there ever be any apology for me attempting to be a step ahead of people with ill intent, or protecting anyone from a person with ill intent. For every action...


For the record, I won't ever consider you, or anyone else, less human than me. We're all the same, with the same rights and the same duties.

For the record I will always return the favor...UNLESS you try to harm or murder a loved one, friend, myself, or anyone generally around my vicinity...however, seeing you won't squish a fly, I think we will be safe here lol.

People may have evil intentions, but they're also lazy by nature. Guns make killing anyone really easy, so they're predisposed to kill more readily than if they had to run around with a knife making sure every stab is lethal. Compare the number of mass shootings and mass stabbings. Compare the casualties, too.

And as people have the will to hurt and kill, wouldn't it be better to make sure they can't have any easy way to do so? You can't excuse their behaviour saying killing is normal and it always has happened. Societies advance. It is our duty to make sure we don't fall back to darker ages. We have to try and bring down the number of violent crimes and the deaths they bring with them. It will be harder? Hell yes. But that's no excuse.

As I said before, in Spain gun laws are restrictive to the point you can only get a gun if you're in mortal danger. Our murder rate is 0.9, while the US has a rate of 5 [1].

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #334 on: August 07, 2016, 06:20:55 PM »
That's because by you committing that crime you infringe on another persons rights. How is me owning certain types of weapons infringe upon your right?

It puts in grave peril the lives of others, thus violating the right to life.

Cars do a better job at it. The mere ownership of a weapon doesn't endanger your life in any way.

Cars are used to go from a place to another, and the deaths caused by cars are accidents. Guns are made specifically to hurt.

This may sound crude but why should that matter? A death is a death either way and by taking guns you only allow people to switch to other means to kill each other. In fact you may even increase it because now the little old lady who before at least had a .38 revolver to give her the best chance of surviving an attack is now exposed to any young punk who's bored and looking for trouble. Besides, hurting someone may actually be a good thing when you're being attacked.

It matters because deaths are avoidable if you drive well.

That's demonstratively not true. For one no one is perfect 100% of the time and secondly even if you are you can still get creamed by a runaway semi truck. The best you can do is pray. Not only that but its irrelevant. Guns aren't dangerous unless you're irresponsible.

Quote
Guns, on the other hand, are made to hurt.

Guns are designed to shoot projectiles at its intended target. Whether it be cardboard, animal or human. Plus even if it was designed to kill the Chevy corvette is designed to go faster than the legal speed limit in the US. Should we ban fast cars? One more point is that assuming that's the only purpose for guns its still valid in defensive situations.
Quote
And no, it won't increase, because the old lady would have killed her aggressor if given the chance and gun.

So you rather have granny be beaten to death? If the aggressor dies so be it. In fact he got what he deserved.

Quote
Taking all guns out of the streets is even better than letting everyone harm others with such ease.

Sometimes you need to harm someone in order to stop an assailant. What's wrong with that?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #335 on: August 07, 2016, 06:57:39 PM »
Which cyanide is only beaten by shotgun by two percent. If 1% isn't enough to justify self defense then 2% isn't enough to ban guns. When it comes down to it there's either no benefit either way or there's a benefit to owning guns. Either way I win. Why implement a useless law?
Not quite. How many of the unarmed victims were  attacked a second time compared to the armed victims? How hang of the armed victims was killed compared to unarmed? Plus as I stated before guerrilla warfare, even against modern technology, works. A large portion of the military are civilians and another large portion of the uniformed military would refuse to obey a confiscation.
That's the problem. We don't have too many natural predators especially on the east coast.
Those lives are dependent on the gun industry. Aside from job making without guns are military and police are less affective. Not having an affective military and police leaves us exposed to a more aggressive country.
Are you just ignoring everything I say now? Accessibility is just as important as deadliness to suicide: cyanide isn't exactly what I'd call accessible.

If accessibility is the key then we should have a higher suicide rate than Japan. In fact suicides by guns for males should be 70-90% instead of a little more than 50%. The fact is guns do not enable more suicides.

Quote
Guerilla warfare works to exhaust not overthrow.

Either way it works and we win. The only way for it to not work is to nuke everything and I highly doubt that's practical for an army to do to its own people and country.

Quote
A military who won't obey their oath to serve their Commander in Chief is not a safe military.

Their oath is to defend the constitution and country from enemies foriegn and domestic.

Quote
And given plenty of other countries seem to get guns for their military just fine (and police really don't need that many guns, America's plainly make a mess of them) that last bit's hardly an issue.

Name one NATO military that is not heavily funded by the US. Name one major gun company that doesn't have a robust civilian market.

Quote
And we've been over multiple benefits: Australia's total lack of mass shootings since enacting gun control, dramatically lower crime rates in countries with gun control, faster declining crime after gun control, a removal of the 'accidental' shootings... As well as indirect benefits such as not needing every police officer to go around armed and the news-filling murders that result, for one.

Australia had ten massecres since the ban and had a growing gun ownership.

Quote
Quote
That was one link about open carry. I've linked to other sites about concealed carry. Here's another example.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
It was your summary of the facts. (And if you really want to look at your links from last time: you had a student paper, one that said the opposite of what you claimed, and one by an author with a terrible track record and made no claim about facts). And you really might need to think about why all your key results stem from clearly motivated sources, while I've been able to find a number of neutral studies with neutral sources. I'm still struggling to work out what half of that one means; the graphs are incoherent and definitions are woefully lacking. Plus neutral sources, like the one you yourself provided, plainly demonstrate there's no noticeable change in crime rate.

I think I found what you're looking for.

http://defendandcarry.com/the-trace-debunked-finds-no-advantages-to-using-a-firearm-in-self-defense/

Also gun sales are rising but crime is falling. Why?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#534ac9dd7de9


http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616

Quote
Quote
Its fine to investigate shootings with a proper warrant, but don't assume everybody is guilty until proven innocent.
They're not investigating things without cause, it just helps to be, you know, capable of actually investigating when the need arises. Knowing who bought a gun is the most basic thing to expect from a law enforcement agency, and it doesn't impact on your rights in the slightest, until your gun is used for a crime.

The criminals sand off the serial numbers. How are you going to trace the gun now?

Quote
For crying out loud, cars are more heavily regulated than guns in the US, does that seriously not bother you?!

Nope. And yet we have more fatal car accident than all guns deaths combined when talking about ratio.

Quote
Quote
They should only be infringed by either due process or if not old enough.
So, it can be infringed. It's that simple. The 'shall NOT' is not absolute .

Those are the only exceptions to "shall not" as listed in the constitution.

Quote
Quote
By registering your forced to testify the fact that you have a gun and by searches and seizures if they find a unregistered gun they'll confiscate it without due process.
They'd still need a warrant to search your house for an unregistered gun, that's not going to change.

I'm reffering more so to unexpected inspections.

Quote
And the fifth amendment is to prevent you from testifying in order to incriminate yourself only, people are often still compelled to testify (and held in contempt if they don't) so even if that was a reasonable depiction of the situation, it doesn't violate the fifth amendment because owning a gun is not incriminating.

It is if its linked to a crime.

Quote
Using that in a crime is incriminating, but it's no more a fifth amendment violation than having a photo of you circulated.
As for being confiscated without due process, given that it would be a crime to possess an unregistered gun, the situation is analogous to having a stolen gun. What would you propose happen then?

Why it should be illegal to have an unregistered gun?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #336 on: August 08, 2016, 02:47:33 AM »
Maybe I can sum up a little between Jane, luke, glaring eye and myself.

I agree there would be less deaths without fire arms. However, as the UK shows, people will just attack each other in other ways which goes back to my sarcastic comments of MMA and the five finger death Punch. I mean the UK is number 1 for violent crimes in that part of the world...even above South Africa.

So this goes to show it is a mentality issue as I believe glaring and I both agree on.

However in the U.S. where I am located and guns are plenty, I prefer to stay armed and attempt to stay a step ahead of someone who has ill intent for loved ones safety, my own and anyone around me.


Also one more thing...it should be shown high fire arm possession and low crime rate/murder can exist. Such as the town I live in and the town many gun advocates use Plano,tx. However, it is a mentality and many other things, stuff I listed in detail a page or two back and don't feel like rehashing. However, in the grand scheme of things, the amount of firearms is one of the least contributing factors.

Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #337 on: August 08, 2016, 04:12:15 AM »

It matters because deaths are avoidable if you drive well.

That's demonstratively not true. For one no one is perfect 100% of the time and secondly even if you are you can still get creamed by a runaway semi truck. The best you can do is pray. Not only that but its irrelevant. Guns aren't dangerous unless you're irresponsible.

Quote
Guns, on the other hand, are made to hurt.

Guns are designed to shoot projectiles at its intended target. Whether it be cardboard, animal or human. Plus even if it was designed to kill the Chevy corvette is designed to go faster than the legal speed limit in the US. Should we ban fast cars? One more point is that assuming that's the only purpose for guns its still valid in defensive situations.
Quote
And no, it won't increase, because the old lady would have killed her aggressor if given the chance and gun.

So you rather have granny be beaten to death? If the aggressor dies so be it. In fact he got what he deserved.

Quote
Taking all guns out of the streets is even better than letting everyone harm others with such ease.

Sometimes you need to harm someone in order to stop an assailant. What's wrong with that?

Accidents happen, but you can't use that as excuse for carrying weapons around. The original target for guns is humans. Don't tell me the fact bullets are designed to break or spin inside the body and cause the largets amount of damage possible is irrelevant. They're intended to hit living targets, and I doubt people hunt with ak's. What about armor piercing rounds? are those to shoot cardboard? The corvette may be designed to run fast to the point it can surpass US speed limits, but they're also sold in Germany, where those speed limits don't exist.

And did you just say a gun in the hands of a trained soldier is not dangerous? I thought they were supposed to fight and kill enemies, but I guess I'm wrong.

The granny versus the thug... I can't understand how someone who has a Bible as their avatar is ok with people killing people. But most of the time, the aggressor doesn't want to hurt, they only want to leave a bit richer. Capital punisment for that is a bit too much.

And shooting an assailant turns you into the aggressor. that's what's wrong. You can't stop violence with violence. You can't do anything with violence in a modern society. I'm pretty sure there's something about it even in the Bible...


Maybe I can sum up a little between Jane, luke, glaring eye and myself.

I agree there would be less deaths without fire arms. However, as the UK shows, people will just attack each other in other ways which goes back to my sarcastic comments of MMA and the five finger death Punch. I mean the UK is number 1 for violent crimes in that part of the world...even above South Africa.

So this goes to show it is a mentality issue as I believe glaring and I both agree on.

However in the U.S. where I am located and guns are plenty, I prefer to stay armed and attempt to stay a step ahead of someone who has ill intent for loved ones safety, my own and anyone around me.


Also one more thing...it should be shown high fire arm possession and low crime rate/murder can exist. Such as the town I live in and the town many gun advocates use Plano,tx. However, it is a mentality and many other things, stuff I listed in detail a page or two back and don't feel like rehashing. However, in the grand scheme of things, the amount of firearms is one of the least contributing factors.



Violence in the UK is usually non-lethal. Sure, there are brawls and fights and robberies, but there aren't guns around to make violence escalate to lethal levels. That's the thing. Even in a country with those levels of crime, deaths are lower than in the US because there aren't guns involved. It helps more than you think. Would you rather go to the hospital with a broken arm or with a bullet in your gut?

Yes, it is a mentality issue. There is a lot of tension between communities in the US, to the point they see each other as strangers. There's also high glorification of everything to do with war, as it has everything to do with the country's history. We all can see almost everyday in the news there's been a violent incident between communities. Taking weapons off the map would at least make it easier for the police and harder for the criminals in those places, and it wouldn't make it more dangerous in places already peaceful.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #338 on: August 08, 2016, 04:38:48 AM »
If accessibility is the key then we should have a higher suicide rate than Japan. In fact suicides by guns for males should be 70-90% instead of a little more than 50%. The fact is guns do not enable more suicides.
So you are just ignoring everything I say. Once again:
The key issue in Japan is motive. Particularly the working environment there encourages stress, which encourages suicide. Motive alone is not enough to commit suicide, ability must also be present. However, with a very high motive, trickier means to commit suicide would be attempted. They'd be more willing to go through painful means, for example.
In the US, there is less motive, so we would expect different statistics. However, the accessibility of suicide goes up, so people only slightly inclined in that direction can far more easily access the means to kill themselves. Remove the accessibility in the US, it wouldn't increase the level of motive, it would decrease the level of accessibility.
All you're showing is that there's more then one cause for suicide. No one is denying that. The key is that guns are a factor.

Quote
Either way it works and we win. The only way for it to not work is to nuke everything and I highly doubt that's practical for an army to do to its own people and country.
Or just drone strike. Crops need to grow outside, for example. The reason guerilla warfare works in another country is that supply lines are limited; in the US it'd be easy to starve out any supposed insurgents. Tinned food wouldn't last that long when shared between a whole militia.

Quote
Their oath is to defend the constitution and country from enemies foriegn and domestic.
"and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States."

Quote
Name one NATO military that is not heavily funded by the US. Name one major gun company that doesn't have a robust civilian market.
Gun-wise, which ultimately is the real key:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_brands
Plenty aren't US based, and further a lot have other products so even if gun sales went down it wouldn't hurt them that much.

Quote
Australia had ten massecres since the ban and had a growing gun ownership.
Fewer than before, and of a markedly less dangerous standard, hence not calling them mass shootings.

Quote
I think I found what you're looking for.
http://defendandcarry.com/the-trace-debunked-finds-no-advantages-to-using-a-firearm-in-self-defense/
Also gun sales are rising but crime is falling. Why?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#534ac9dd7de9
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616
Crime levels are falling globally, irrespective of gun ownership. As for that supposed rebuttal, it's pretty much just a rant, there's no actual substantive criticism of the survey in question beyond "I want it to be wrong," and "Here's a survey already discussed and dealt with."

Quote
The criminals sand off the serial numbers. How are you going to trace the gun now?
Aside from the fact you'd need a career criminal for them to sand off numbers, which is far from always the case (so even if that was all that mattered, it's a good advantage), make and model would naturally narrow it down.
Besides, that's about as meaningful as saying "Criminals can get fake license plates/take them off, what's the point of license plates?" a) not all criminals, b) other purposes.

Quote
Nope. And yet we have more fatal car accident than all guns deaths combined when talking about ratio.
Because cars have a purpose beyond shooting things.

Quote
Those are the only exceptions to "shall not" as listed in the constitution.
Where in the second amendment are these exceptions?

Quote
I'm reffering more so to unexpected inspections.
Which isn't relevant here given that there wouldn't be any inspection without due cause as it is.

Quote
It is if its linked to a crime.
See what I said in literally the next sentence.

Quote
Why it should be illegal to have an unregistered gun?
Why would someone want an unregistered gun? No difference in function, use... The only reason would be to try and hide the fact you have a gun. Given none of those people complain about having, say, a social security number, has to be more than simply being in a database that worries them.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #339 on: August 08, 2016, 10:48:35 AM »

It matters because deaths are avoidable if you drive well.

That's demonstratively not true. For one no one is perfect 100% of the time and secondly even if you are you can still get creamed by a runaway semi truck. The best you can do is pray. Not only that but its irrelevant. Guns aren't dangerous unless you're irresponsible.

Quote
Guns, on the other hand, are made to hurt.

Guns are designed to shoot projectiles at its intended target. Whether it be cardboard, animal or human. Plus even if it was designed to kill the Chevy corvette is designed to go faster than the legal speed limit in the US. Should we ban fast cars? One more point is that assuming that's the only purpose for guns its still valid in defensive situations.
Quote
And no, it won't increase, because the old lady would have killed her aggressor if given the chance and gun.

So you rather have granny be beaten to death? If the aggressor dies so be it. In fact he got what he deserved.

Quote
Taking all guns out of the streets is even better than letting everyone harm others with such ease.

Sometimes you need to harm someone in order to stop an assailant. What's wrong with that?

Accidents happen, but you can't use that as excuse for carrying weapons around. The original target for guns is humans. Don't tell me the fact bullets are designed to break or spin inside the body and cause the largets amount of damage possible is irrelevant. They're intended to hit living targets, and I doubt people hunt with ak's.

Actually you can.

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2013/11/05/deer-hog-rifle-ak-47/

Not only that but there's the AK hunter which looks like an average hunting rifle but can accept AK rounds and magazines.

Quote
What about armor piercing rounds? are those to shoot cardboard?

It's designed to pierce armor. Plus I was talking about the gun, you're talking about the rounds.

Quote
The corvette may be designed to run fast to the point it can surpass US speed limits, but they're also sold in Germany, where those speed limits don't exist.

So why sell a car capable of exceeding the speed limit here? Why not curb it back to 80 mph? And plus I don't think that entirely true about the speed limit in Germany.

Quote
And did you just say a gun in the hands of a trained soldier is not dangerous? I thought they were supposed to fight and kill enemies, but I guess I'm wrong.

Something that is dangerous implies that it can be hazardous to the owner even when operated correctly. Cars are dangerous. A soldier should be deadly, not dangerous otherwise he might blow up his own HQ.

Quote
The granny versus the thug... I can't understand how someone who has a Bible as their avatar is ok with people killing people.

For one my avatar and username also suggest that the Bible is for just killing. And also I'm not saying granny should purposely kill the aggressor but to defend herself from him and if he dies so be it.
Quote
But most of the time, the aggressor doesn't want to hurt, they only want to leave a bit richer. Capital punisment for that is a bit too much.

How do you expect for granny to know that when she is punched and pushed to the ground? She is within her rights to assume the assailant wants to beat or kill her.

Quote
And shooting an assailant turns you into the aggressor. that's what's wrong. You can't stop violence with violence. You can't do anything with violence in a modern society. I'm pretty sure there's something about it even in the Bible...

Tell that to the military and police. If you really want to live by that standard then if you get mugged you won't call the police because they might use deadly force to stop the suspect. No, you don't become the aggressor when you're defending yourself from great bodily harm or death. And the Bible only condemns vengeance, not self defense.

Quote
Maybe I can sum up a little between Jane, luke, glaring eye and myself.

I agree there would be less deaths without fire arms. However, as the UK shows, people will just attack each other in other ways which goes back to my sarcastic comments of MMA and the five finger death Punch. I mean the UK is number 1 for violent crimes in that part of the world...even above South Africa.

So this goes to show it is a mentality issue as I believe glaring and I both agree on.

However in the U.S. where I am located and guns are plenty, I prefer to stay armed and attempt to stay a step ahead of someone who has ill intent for loved ones safety, my own and anyone around me.


Also one more thing...it should be shown high fire arm possession and low crime rate/murder can exist. Such as the town I live in and the town many gun advocates use Plano,tx. However, it is a mentality and many other things, stuff I listed in detail a page or two back and don't feel like rehashing. However, in the grand scheme of things, the amount of firearms is one of the least contributing factors.



Violence in the UK is usually non-lethal. Sure, there are brawls and fights and robberies, but there aren't guns around to make violence escalate to lethal levels. That's the thing. Even in a country with those levels of crime, deaths are lower than in the US because there aren't guns involved. It helps more than you think. Would you rather go to the hospital with a broken arm or with a bullet in your gut?

Yes, it is a mentality issue. There is a lot of tension between communities in the US, to the point they see each other as strangers. There's also high glorification of everything to do with war, as it has everything to do with the country's history. We all can see almost everyday in the news there's been a violent incident between communities. Taking weapons off the map would at least make it easier for the police and harder for the criminals in those places, and it wouldn't make it more dangerous in places already peaceful.

Not to me.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #340 on: August 08, 2016, 12:46:19 PM »
If accessibility is the key then we should have a higher suicide rate than Japan. In fact suicides by guns for males should be 70-90% instead of a little more than 50%. The fact is guns do not enable more suicides.
So you are just ignoring everything I say. Once again:
The key issue in Japan is motive. Particularly the working environment there encourages stress, which encourages suicide. Motive alone is not enough to commit suicide, ability must also be present. However, with a very high motive, trickier means to commit suicide would be attempted. They'd be more willing to go through painful means, for example.
In the US, there is less motive, so we would expect different statistics. However, the accessibility of suicide goes up, so people only slightly inclined in that direction can far more easily access the means to kill themselves. Remove the accessibility in the US, it wouldn't increase the level of motive, it would decrease the level of accessibility.

No it doesn't. Australia had an increase in suicides recently.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/09/highest-australian-suicide-rate-in-13-years-driven-by-men-aged-40-to-44

Not only that we have a lower suicide rate than France, Finland, and Iceland which all have lower gun ownership.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
 
Quote
All you're showing is that there's more then one cause for suicide. No one is denying that. The key is that guns are a factor.

Not to the extent you describe.

Quote
Quote
Either way it works and we win. The only way for it to not work is to nuke everything and I highly doubt that's practical for an army to do to its own people and country.
Or just drone strike. Crops need to grow outside, for example.

As useful as they are they need logistics. You can't send a million dollar glorified RC plane out to every suspension of guerrilla activity. They need spotters on the ground, perfect weather conditions, enough fuel, mechanics to repair them, etc.

Quote
The reason guerilla warfare works in another country is that supply lines are limited; in the US it'd be easy to starve out any supposed insurgents. Tinned food wouldn't last that long when shared between a whole militia.

There are ways to grow a garden to make it look like its apart of nature.

Quote
Quote
Their oath is to defend the constitution and country from enemies foriegn and domestic.
"and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States."

Which doesn't go against the constitution. Over here the constitution is the surpreme law of the land and every law and order must be in agreement of it. If not then its legally null and void.

Quote
Quote
Name one NATO military that is not heavily funded by the US. Name one major gun company that doesn't have a robust civilian market.
Gun-wise, which ultimately is the real key:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_brands
Plenty aren't US based, and further a lot have other products so even if gun sales went down it wouldn't hurt them that much.

I didn't asked for a gun company not based in the US. I asked for a major gun company that didn't had a robust civilian market.

Quote
Quote
Australia had ten massecres since the ban and had a growing gun ownership.
Fewer than before, and of a markedly less dangerous standard, hence not calling them mass shootings.

Actually no. The past 18 years since the ban they had 11 massacres. 18 years before the ban they had 8.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia



Quote
Quote
I think I found what you're looking for.
http://defendandcarry.com/the-trace-debunked-finds-no-advantages-to-using-a-firearm-in-self-defense/
Also gun sales are rising but crime is falling. Why?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#534ac9dd7de9
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616
Crime levels are falling globally, irrespective of gun ownership.

So if anything we shouldn't implement gun control simply becuase its unaffective.

Quote
As for that supposed rebuttal, it's pretty much just a rant, there's no actual substantive criticism of the survey in question beyond "I want it to be wrong," and "Here's a survey already discussed and dealt with."

Even the CDC rejects the method your link used.

Quote
Quote
The criminals sand off the serial numbers. How are you going to trace the gun now?
Aside from the fact you'd need a career criminal for them to sand off numbers, which is far from always the case (so even if that was all that mattered, it's a good advantage), make and model would naturally narrow it down.

It doesn't take but a few dollars at Home Depot to pick up a good sanding block.

Quote
Besides, that's about as meaningful as saying "Criminals can get fake license plates/take them off, what's the point of license plates?" a) not all criminals, b) other purposes.

What other purposes?

Quote
Quote
Nope. And yet we have more fatal car accident than all guns deaths combined when talking about ratio.
Because cars have a purpose beyond shooting things.

So because cars have another purpose it makes them more dangerous?

Quote
Quote
Those are the only exceptions to "shall not" as listed in the constitution.
Where in the second amendment are these exceptions?

It's not there but it's explained elsewhere in the constitution.

Quote
Quote
I'm reffering more so to unexpected inspections.
Which isn't relevant here given that there wouldn't be any inspection without due cause as it is.

Is that the case over where you're at?

Quote
Quote
It is if its linked to a crime.
See what I said in literally the next sentence.

Quote
Why it should be illegal to have an unregistered gun?
Why would someone want an unregistered gun?
Becuase its my own business how many guns I have.

Quote
No difference in function, use... The only reason would be to try and hide the fact you have a gun. Given none of those people complain about having, say, a social security number, has to be more than simply being in a database that worries them.

I complain about having SS number because its useless to preform its original purpose.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #341 on: August 08, 2016, 03:00:28 PM »
Taking a brief hiatus from responding Luke, sorry, project-work's getting out of control and it takes a fair bit of time to write up replies.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #342 on: August 09, 2016, 09:37:54 AM »
Taking a brief hiatus from responding Luke, sorry, project-work's getting out of control and it takes a fair bit of time to write up replies.

Ok.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #343 on: April 14, 2019, 02:18:56 PM »
Why did I get a notification for a dead thread?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49871
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #344 on: April 14, 2019, 02:20:21 PM »
Why did you revive a dead thread just because you got a notification?
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #345 on: April 14, 2019, 02:35:34 PM »
Let's all post in a dead thread!
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #346 on: April 14, 2019, 03:14:07 PM »
Wow that brief hiatus has been almost two years!
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16353
  • Djinn
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #347 on: April 14, 2019, 04:59:14 PM »
Alright then. Let's pick up the discussion where it left off.

I believe that if trump wins the republican nomination then it'll be a disaster for gun control. I'm really hoping it's Kasich vs sanders.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #348 on: April 14, 2019, 09:44:28 PM »
Let's all post in a dead thread!
OK, for what it's worth: Gun laws stopped mass shootings in Australia, 13 March 2018, Gun control is back on the agenda.
Despite the title, "Gun laws stopped mass shootings in Australia", the answer is only a resounding "maybe".

And there have been plenty of shootings, though mostly with illegal (stolen, smuggled or made) weapons and with few enough casualties in each case to avoid being classed as a "mass shooting".
"Gun laws" have only a limited effect on those who ignore the law.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #349 on: April 15, 2019, 02:39:38 AM »
Alright then. Let's pick up the discussion where it left off.

I believe that if trump wins the republican nomination then it'll be a disaster for gun control. I'm really hoping it's Kasich vs sanders.
I doubt there's any real chance of Trump losing the nomination.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #350 on: April 15, 2019, 04:38:33 AM »
3-D printed guns are illegal. It has never been about the right to keep and bear arms, it is about the right of lobbiers to sell them to you.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #351 on: April 15, 2019, 02:38:56 PM »
Make your own gun in America is quite easy to do.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #352 on: April 16, 2019, 05:59:14 AM »
Alright then. Let's pick up the discussion where it left off.

I believe that if trump wins the republican nomination then it'll be a disaster for gun control. I'm really hoping it's Kasich vs sanders.
I'm voting for Bill Clinton.

Wait, what year is this?  Sorry, confused since the brain injury.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #353 on: April 20, 2019, 10:19:49 PM »

"Gun laws" have only a limited effect on those who ignore the law.

There are few law abiding criminals.   ;)

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« Reply #354 on: April 24, 2019, 04:20:26 PM »
Why did you revive a dead thread just because you got a notification?

Because...
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.