Jump to content

CAWs.ws
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Feed

World Politics Discussion


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#41 King RyderFan

King RyderFan

    Live and let live!

  • Members
  • 21,595 posts
  • Location: Take it all the way
  • Gamertag: Fight another fight for another day
  • SEN (PS3): Everything is changed but they should remain
  • Steam ID: I'm fighting until my fists stop feeling, my heart stops beating
  • Twitter: @Rated_CHZRFan

Posted 22 March 2019 - 03:02 PM

 

Makes me glad I don't live in New Zealand.

 
I'm sure they're glad to not have you.
 

tenor.gif?itemid=5850917
 

Makes me glad there's a whole ocean seperating us. Why are you against preventing things like tis happening again?


This is why I have a hard time debating guns on here. Not because I dislike the conversation. Not because I'm against difference of opinion. But because I have a different opinion I'm now either labeled as gun obsessed or against trying to stop mass shootings.  If anyone wants to know my stances on gun control you can either look through previous threads or ask me a real question.

Well what suggestions do you have to stop mass shootings? Taking away items that are only designed to damage and injure seems like the smartest cause of action. What reason do people have to own military grade assault rifles? With knifes you can't do long range attacks. Maybe if you throw it at someone but even then yu can't do that to multiple people in quick sucession like you can a gun.

#42 nWo_Kevin

nWo_Kevin

    Legend

  • Members
  • 5,944 posts
  • Location: New York

Posted 22 March 2019 - 03:54 PM

You literally posted

Makes me glad I don't live in New Zealand.

in response to stricter gun laws

 


In response to a government acting emotionally and irrationally to a scumbag who acted irrationally and emotionally.
 

Well what suggestions do you have to stop mass shootings? Taking away items that are only designed to damage and injure seems like the smartest cause of action. What reason do people have to own military grade assault rifles? With knifes you can't do long range attacks. Maybe if you throw it at someone but even then yu can't do that to multiple people in quick sucession like you can a gun.


Are we talking about just New Zealand or the United States? We can do both if you want but lets go with New Zealand first. In New Zealand there were 1.2 million registered guns in 2017.  That same year there were 35 murders according to USA Today. The majority of those murders did not involve a gun. This tells me that despite this being a horrible incident, it is a rare occurrence. That the heavy majority of people in New Zealand can be trusted with guns and that you'd be completely safe around those people. 

 

Likewise the person who acted out this shooting had a valid gun license. But the guns used had been illegally upgraded. In other words, this guy did not follow the gun laws in place. And I'm sure he would not have followed any new gun laws implemented either. 

 

This guy was a white supremacist. New Zealand can obviously do whatever they want but based on the statistics given. I'd work on going after that type of thinking, as opposed to the guns which cause very few deaths there. 



#43 Generations

Generations

    Official CAWs.ws Addict

  • Members
  • 89,391 posts
  • Location: New Jersey

Posted 22 March 2019 - 04:08 PM

Dude...are we really going back to the "murders happen daily without guns" rhetoric?

 

The point is, an automatic weapon can kill a massive group of people instantly. 50 people dead...with the squeeze of a trigger. That's a tragedy. It's never good when anyone is murdered...but, the amount of people affected by a large scale shooting greatly outweighs what happens when you you're talking about those individual murders. You're talking about shattering a community in minutes.

 

30 random people being murdered in the US, sprinkled all around the nation, is not the same as an entire community being wiped out in one act. Brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, neighbors, friends. The only way to kill that many people is with an explosive device, or with an automatic weapon. One of those is illegal. The other definitely should be. End of. 


Edited by Generations, 22 March 2019 - 04:18 PM.


#44 King RyderFan

King RyderFan

    Live and let live!

  • Members
  • 21,595 posts
  • Location: Take it all the way
  • Gamertag: Fight another fight for another day
  • SEN (PS3): Everything is changed but they should remain
  • Steam ID: I'm fighting until my fists stop feeling, my heart stops beating
  • Twitter: @Rated_CHZRFan

Posted 22 March 2019 - 04:17 PM

Dude...are we really going back to the "murders happen daily without guns" rhetoric?
 
The point is, an automatic weapon can kill a massive group of people instantly. 50 people dead...with the squeeze of a trigger. That's a tragedy. It's never good when anyone is murdered...but, the amount of people affected by a large scale shooting greatly outweighs what happens when you you're talking about those individual murders. You're talking about shattering a community in minutes.
 
The only way to kill that many people is with an explosive device, or with an automatic weapon. One of those is illegal. The other definitely should be. End of. 


Exactly. Think of a group of 100 people. You give me a knife or a blunt object like a crowbar, I may be able to seriously injure a few, but the majority will get away and there is a high chance they may even be able to take me down themselves. You give me a gun however, I can seriously injure or even kill the vast majority of them very, very quickly. Hell, I'd go as far as to say explosive devices have more right being legal than guns. At least with them you need the element of surprise for them to be effective. Not that either should be legsl of course.

#45 Generations

Generations

    Official CAWs.ws Addict

  • Members
  • 89,391 posts
  • Location: New Jersey

Posted 22 March 2019 - 04:22 PM

Also...now I that I read that post again...what you said becomes even more absurd.

 

35 murders in a year? That obviously pertains to premeditated murder...like, serial killer shit. The number of gun deaths in the US in a year is about 40,000 from what I can tell. Whatever agenda exists that keeps gun deaths from being called "murder" does not change the true numbers here... 

 

 

Gun-lovers seem to have a real problem with calling things what they are...

 

Shooting = murder

Mass shooting = terrorism

White supremacist = terrorist

 

And so on...


Edited by Generations, 22 March 2019 - 04:29 PM.


#46 King RyderFan

King RyderFan

    Live and let live!

  • Members
  • 21,595 posts
  • Location: Take it all the way
  • Gamertag: Fight another fight for another day
  • SEN (PS3): Everything is changed but they should remain
  • Steam ID: I'm fighting until my fists stop feeling, my heart stops beating
  • Twitter: @Rated_CHZRFan

Posted 22 March 2019 - 04:26 PM

Also...now I that I read that post again...what you said becomes even more absurd.
 
35 murders in a year? That obviously pertains to premeditated murder...like, cereal killer shit. The number of gun deaths in the US in a year is about 40,000 from what I can tell. Whatever agenda exists that keeps gun deaths from being called "murder" does not change the true numbers here... 


I don't know how spoons come into this. :lol:

#47 Generations

Generations

    Official CAWs.ws Addict

  • Members
  • 89,391 posts
  • Location: New Jersey

Posted 22 March 2019 - 04:29 PM

Shhh...I've only had one coffee.



#48 nWo_Kevin

nWo_Kevin

    Legend

  • Members
  • 5,944 posts
  • Location: New York

Posted 22 March 2019 - 04:34 PM

30 random people being murdered in the US, sprinkled all around the nation, is not the same as an entire community being wiped out in one act. Brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, neighbors, friends. The only way to kill that many people is with an explosive device, or with an automatic weapon. One of those is illegal. The other definitely should be. End of. 

 

Perhaps I'm confused by what your saying. But do you think those 35 murders are in regards to the USA? I said it came from a "USA Today" article. There were less than 35 gun related murders in New Zealand in 2017. 

 

https://www.usatoday...and/3172278002/

 

Statistically guns are not an issue in that country. 


Edited by nWo_Kevin, 22 March 2019 - 05:23 PM.


#49 M3J

M3J

    Captain Fap

  • Members
  • 53,350 posts
  • SEN (PS3): ask in PM
  • Twitter: ask in PM

Posted 22 March 2019 - 11:08 PM

Guns weren't banned, assault rifles and semi-automatics were. It means you can still legally own a handgun, just not assault rifles. This is something USA should do, as well as pass stricter gun control laws nationwide instead of just letting NY and another state do it. I can't be assed, but I think there are studies that say deaths by gun is higher in states with lax gun control than it is in states with stricter gun control.



#50 WNX

WNX

    Upper Midcard

  • Members
  • 2,417 posts
  • Location: 5 Miles from Ben and Jerry's
  • Gamertag: WebbanationX
  • SEN (PS3): WebbanationX

Posted 23 March 2019 - 01:22 AM

35 gun deaths the whole year? Damn cuz, if only...

I mentioned in the mass shooting thread awhile back that when you take away something like this, people just want it more. It's gonna be at the expense of many innocents unfortunately but im curious to see if that number grows after the buyback period ends. It's such an isolated innocent that it may not do much in the grand scheme of things to simply ban some weapons.

Military grade/style weapons and "assault rifles" aren't the only potential semi auto firearms out there. I think the clip limit helps the law out but like it's been said, the guns are tweaked in illegal ways that make them more dangerous. You can tweak non military style weapons to do the same scaled dangerous sheeit. So if it took somebody 23 years to do something this devastating in that area with the laws currently in place, changing them like this doesn't guarantee another serene 23 years. It just pisses off a bunch of gun owners

#51 M3J

M3J

    Captain Fap

  • Members
  • 53,350 posts
  • SEN (PS3): ask in PM
  • Twitter: ask in PM

Posted 23 March 2019 - 04:11 AM

But banning assault rifles and military grade weapons make it even more difficult to get the weapons and make it more likely for the person to get caught. On top of that, we don't even need guns like those at all. The gun owners shouldn't have anything to be angry about, especially if it results in a safer environment. 



#52 WNX

WNX

    Upper Midcard

  • Members
  • 2,417 posts
  • Location: 5 Miles from Ben and Jerry's
  • Gamertag: WebbanationX
  • SEN (PS3): WebbanationX

Posted 23 March 2019 - 05:23 AM

I'm not getting back into the convo surrounding "need" again but the legislative wording in this new law better be air tight cause like I said, there are other weapons that don't come off quite as threatening as the ones they're trying to ban that could do as much or more damage. This is false security.

And why would some gun owners feel safer by LOSING an essence of their safety? They should be gaddamn furious. ONE bad actor just ruined it for all of them

#53 maskedmaniac

maskedmaniac

    Undefeated at Wrestlemania: 0-0

  • Members
  • 21,766 posts
  • Location: Los Angeles

Posted 23 March 2019 - 06:24 AM

I'm not getting back into the convo surrounding "need" again but the legislative wording in this new law better be air tight cause like I said, there are other weapons that don't come off quite as threatening as the ones they're trying to ban that could do as much or more damage. This is false security.

And why would some gun owners feel safer by LOSING an essence of their safety? They should be gaddamn furious. ONE bad actor just ruined it for all of them

 

Ruined what? Lol, I don't understand why people will get so upset over losing the right to own something that isn't really necessary.



#54 M3J

M3J

    Captain Fap

  • Members
  • 53,350 posts
  • SEN (PS3): ask in PM
  • Twitter: ask in PM

Posted 23 March 2019 - 06:40 AM

I'm not getting back into the convo surrounding "need" again but the legislative wording in this new law better be air tight cause like I said, there are other weapons that don't come off quite as threatening as the ones they're trying to ban that could do as much or more damage. This is false security.

And why would some gun owners feel safer by LOSING an essence of their safety? They should be gaddamn furious. ONE bad actor just ruined it for all of them

Why in the entire *Censored* would you need an assault rifle when you can use a handgun? 

 

Can handguns be modified to have a huge magazine and fire rapidly like assault rifles? 



#55 WNX

WNX

    Upper Midcard

  • Members
  • 2,417 posts
  • Location: 5 Miles from Ben and Jerry's
  • Gamertag: WebbanationX
  • SEN (PS3): WebbanationX

Posted 23 March 2019 - 08:24 AM

I wouldn't doubt it. That'd be a Bdon question, but I'm more concerned about other rifles that don't fall into the category of military grade. 

 

 

ONE bad actor just ruined it for all of them

 

Ruined what? Lol, I don't understand why people will get so upset over losing the right to own something that isn't really necessary.

 

Why "IT" of course :P

 

Casting deadliness completely aside for a moment, what do you post on? PC? Laptop? Smartphone? Let's say it's a smartphone or tablet. "Necessity" is subjective. Do you need it for your job? What aspect of it exactly? Can you do everything you need from your home PC? Find then, you can talk and text with a flip phone, right? I'm yoinkin that. You can use the flip, you don't need a smartphone

 

Matter of fact, do you really need a PC at your house anyways? Can't you just go to the library? Let's yoink that too.

 

Oh, you're a gamer right? PS4? Yoinked for the trifecta, because your hobbies are damn sure not necessities.

 

Let's take everything that you enjoy in life, everything that isn't 100% essential to your survival, and take that sheeit.

 

"Whatchu so upset for? It's not a necessity"

 

Ownership of a firearm is no different from the ownership of anything else you possess. You don't want people telling you to give up something you worked for and bought, was gifted to you, whatever. It's your stuff, thus your decision as to rather or not you want to keep it.

 



#56 M3J

M3J

    Captain Fap

  • Members
  • 53,350 posts
  • SEN (PS3): ask in PM
  • Twitter: ask in PM

Posted 23 March 2019 - 10:28 PM

wut

 

Phones, computers, and video games don't kill people. Guns do. Guns don't have any use but hurting or killing a living thing. Comparing guns to knives is dumb as it is, but actually comparing it to phones? You can't cast deadliness aside when that's literally the main reason why people want stricter gun control laws and to have assault rifles and the likes banned. 



#57 King RyderFan

King RyderFan

    Live and let live!

  • Members
  • 21,595 posts
  • Location: Take it all the way
  • Gamertag: Fight another fight for another day
  • SEN (PS3): Everything is changed but they should remain
  • Steam ID: I'm fighting until my fists stop feeling, my heart stops beating
  • Twitter: @Rated_CHZRFan

Posted 23 March 2019 - 10:38 PM

I wouldn't doubt it. That'd be a Bdon question, but I'm more concerned about other rifles that don't fall into the category of military grade. 
 


 


ONE bad actor just ruined it for all of them

 
Ruined what? Lol, I don't understand why people will get so upset over losing the right to own something that isn't really necessary.
 
Why "IT" of course :P
 
Casting deadliness completely aside for a moment, what do you post on? PC? Laptop? Smartphone? Let's say it's a smartphone or tablet. "Necessity" is subjective. Do you need it for your job? What aspect of it exactly? Can you do everything you need from your home PC? Find then, you can talk and text with a flip phone, right? I'm yoinkin that. You can use the flip, you don't need a smartphone
 
Matter of fact, do you really need a PC at your house anyways? Can't you just go to the library? Let's yoink that too.
 
Oh, you're a gamer right? PS4? Yoinked for the trifecta, because your hobbies are damn sure not necessities.
 
Let's take everything that you enjoy in life, everything that isn't 100% essential to your survival, and take that sheeit.
 
"Whatchu so upset for? It's not a necessity"
 
Ownership of a firearm is no different from the ownership of anything else you possess. You don't want people telling you to give up something you worked for and bought, was gifted to you, whatever. It's your stuff, thus your decision as to rather or not you want to keep it.
 

Dumb as hell comparison. PCs, Laptops, PS4s, phones all have postive uses. The only use a gun has is to damage and injure. You can't communicate to other people with it, you can't use it as a mode of transportation, you can't use it to heal people, why the hell do you need one?

#58 maskedmaniac

maskedmaniac

    Undefeated at Wrestlemania: 0-0

  • Members
  • 21,766 posts
  • Location: Los Angeles

Posted 23 March 2019 - 10:52 PM

Yeah I was waiting for other people to chime in on how absurd that comparison was. Also, it is never about banning ALL guns, just these incredibly dangerous military-grade weapons.



#59 WNX

WNX

    Upper Midcard

  • Members
  • 2,417 posts
  • Location: 5 Miles from Ben and Jerry's
  • Gamertag: WebbanationX
  • SEN (PS3): WebbanationX

Posted 24 March 2019 - 12:50 AM

That's why I started with "casting deadliness aside" which I knew every one would ignore as soon as I typed it. It wasn't about killing 50 people with a laptop, it was about the generalization of your comment, why someone would be upset about losing the right to own something that wasn't necessary. It's gaddamn theirs, that's why, end of story. I'm not even reading those responses because I know what they say

And again, hopefully for the last time, "military grade" isn't the issue. There will be weapons that don't fit the bill that could potentially do the same damage or more so the wording has to be airtight in this legislation

#60 M3J

M3J

    Captain Fap

  • Members
  • 53,350 posts
  • SEN (PS3): ask in PM
  • Twitter: ask in PM

Posted 24 March 2019 - 12:55 AM

And I said you can't just "cast deadliness aside." It's about people being killed, that's literally the only reason why there's a debate over gun control laws.