Mass shooting thread

[Bdon]

 

 

First, you're blowing this way out of proportion and assuming a lot of shit again. You're so damn easy to get worked up it's hilarious. Take a Xanax or something. You do realize that it's not going to be a thing, right? It's not going to be commonplace to have rocket launchers. Do I care if you have a rocket launcher? No. But no one is just going to have rocket launchers. Most gun owners are not going to go out and obtain rocket launchers. I don't know any that actually would, including myself. It's not even realistic to think everyone is just going to be able to get them. Pretty obvious there are those that probably shouldn't have access to something like that but as I said I really don't care if people acquire them. They're already regulated. I'm not up here acting like Oprah trying to hand out rocket launchers. Also pretty sure I never said all households should have rocket launchers and yet you quoted me saying it. That's how fake news gets started Gen. I just said I don't care if you got one. Whether or not I think you should is a different thing altogether.

 

You give me shit about proving things to strangers on the internet and yet here you are trying to call someone out that you know very little about on a wrestling game forum. That's what's sad. You think you're not a hypocrite? lol.

 

 

Exactly my point. It's easy for you to say that you're all good with something...when that thing is not a reality. I'm pretty sure that was my whole point...you saying stupid things.

 

Nah I'll be good with it either way. I'm not sure you're really comprehending the whole "I don't care" thing.

 

If you can't come up with an answer, just say so, no need to deflect or make a long post to avoid answering. And semiautomatic guns serve absolutely no purpose but to kill. But this will be chalked up to you being unable to answer why semiautomatic guns should be allowed.

 

And why do I have to answer again? I even quoted the answer in my reply to Kevin's question. If you can't understand, then that's on you. But let me simplify it for you: AR-15/semiautomatic guns kill many people with one round. Handguns kill fewer people with one round. Not as deadly.

 

Could the Vegas shooter have shot more than 500 people with two or three handguns? Doubt it.

I have answered multiple times. And again, it is my right. Plain and simple. And shall not be infringed. I don't have to explain shit to you beyond that. If I want one, I can go out and get one. I know you hate it, but you can't do shit about it and you'll never even know how satisfying that is to me. Especially because it's someone that doesn't know shit about firearms. It really doesn't matter if it's unnecessary. A lot of things are unnecessary and we have them soooo. And you do know that most handguns are semi-automatic, right? And can hit multiple people with one round if in the right position. You definitely come off as someone that doesn't know what they are talking about. The way you argue about guns, you can definitely tell.

 

Unless you're planning on mass shooting someone or something, there's no need for anything bigger than a handgun.

How am I limiting your rights to not own *censored*ing huge guns that are used in mass murders?

 

Last I recall, handguns don't help you kill tons of people with one round. If guns like AR-15 weren't used to kill people or in mass murders, I'd be okay with it even though it's still unnecessary.

It was kind of a mess but I found it. Again here. You sound ridiculous. First of all. Hunting rifles are bigger and far more powerful than a handgun. Most people have those so you just excluded most guns owned by gun owners. And again handguns are used most in mass murders. So you are contradicting yourself there...again.

 

You are wanting to limit rights by not wanting us to own guns period, really. Let's be honest here and AR-15's are not 'Huge' guns. Again you're coming off as uneducated, and badly. You don't know anything about the .223 round if you think it's huge compared to many other types of ammunition.

 

Lastly, ammo of many types can go through multiple people and objects, handgun ammo included. Most if not all can kill people with one round although not as common or easy as you make it sound for your argument. Word of advice. I wouldn't use that in arguments going forward with people unless you're just circle jerking with like minded people who wouldn't know any better. You just don't know anything about AR-15's and that's pretty plain to see. So maybe study and even go find one to shoot and learn about this shit before you start arguing against it. You're no different than those stay at home moms that share articles about vaccine's and autism and argue with doctors on Facebook. Oh and once again that last sentence is straight up contradicting to what you said. There is no way you can say that without including any guns at all. You might as well admit this is a straight up witch hunt for AR-15s.

[LEGION]

Can't fight the government with a handgu. I want biological and chemical weapons.

[M3J]

So apparently the security guard that was shot is missing

Must be Hillary's fault.

 

 

 

First, you're blowing this way out of proportion and assuming a lot of shit again. You're so damn easy to get worked up it's hilarious. Take a Xanax or something. You do realize that it's not going to be a thing, right? It's not going to be commonplace to have rocket launchers. Do I care if you have a rocket launcher? No. But no one is just going to have rocket launchers. Most gun owners are not going to go out and obtain rocket launchers. I don't know any that actually would, including myself. It's not even realistic to think everyone is just going to be able to get them. Pretty obvious there are those that probably shouldn't have access to something like that but as I said I really don't care if people acquire them. They're already regulated. I'm not up here acting like Oprah trying to hand out rocket launchers. Also pretty sure I never said all households should have rocket launchers and yet you quoted me saying it. That's how fake news gets started Gen. I just said I don't care if you got one. Whether or not I think you should is a different thing altogether.

 

You give me shit about proving things to strangers on the internet and yet here you are trying to call someone out that you know very little about on a wrestling game forum. That's what's sad. You think you're not a hypocrite? lol.

 

 

Exactly my point. It's easy for you to say that you're all good with something...when that thing is not a reality. I'm pretty sure that was my whole point...you saying stupid things.

 

Nah I'll be good with it either way. I'm not sure you're really comprehending the whole "I don't care" thing.

 

If you can't come up with an answer, just say so, no need to deflect or make a long post to avoid answering. And semiautomatic guns serve absolutely no purpose but to kill. But this will be chalked up to you being unable to answer why semiautomatic guns should be allowed.

 

And why do I have to answer again? I even quoted the answer in my reply to Kevin's question. If you can't understand, then that's on you. But let me simplify it for you: AR-15/semiautomatic guns kill many people with one round. Handguns kill fewer people with one round. Not as deadly.

 

Could the Vegas shooter have shot more than 500 people with two or three handguns? Doubt it.

I have answered multiple times. And again, it is my right. Plain and simple. And shall not be infringed. I don't have to explain shit to you beyond that. If I want one, I can go out and get one. I know you hate it, but you can't do shit about it and you'll never even know how satisfying that is to me. Especially because it's someone that doesn't know shit about firearms. It really doesn't matter if it's unnecessary. A lot of things are unnecessary and we have them soooo. And you do know that most handguns are semi-automatic, right? And can hit multiple people with one round if in the right position. You definitely come off as someone that doesn't know what they are talking about. The way you argue about guns, you can definitely tell.

 

Unless you're planning on mass shooting someone or something, there's no need for anything bigger than a handgun.

How am I limiting your rights to not own *censored*ing huge guns that are used in mass murders?

 

Last I recall, handguns don't help you kill tons of people with one round. If guns like AR-15 weren't used to kill people or in mass murders, I'd be okay with it even though it's still unnecessary.

It was kind of a mess but I found it. Again here. You sound ridiculous. First of all. Hunting rifles are bigger and far more powerful than a handgun. Most people have those so you just excluded most guns owned by gun owners. And again handguns are used most in mass murders. So you are contradicting yourself there...again.

 

You are wanting to limit rights by not wanting us to own guns period, really. Let's be honest here and AR-15's are not 'Huge' guns. Again you're coming off as uneducated, and badly. You don't know anything about the .223 round if you think it's huge compared to many other types of ammunition.

 

Lastly, ammo of many types can go through multiple people and objects, handgun ammo included. Most if not all can kill people with one round although not as common or easy as you make it sound for your argument. Word of advice. I wouldn't use that in arguments going forward with people unless you're just circle jerking with like minded people who wouldn't know any better. You just don't know anything about AR-15's and that's pretty plain to see. So maybe study and even go find one to shoot and learn about this shit before you start arguing against it. You're no different than those stay at home moms that share articles about vaccine's and autism and argue with doctors on Facebook. Oh and once again that last sentence is straight up contradicting to what you said. There is no way you can say that without including any guns at all. You might as well admit this is a straight up witch hunt for AR-15s.

 

"it's my right" is not a counter. And the fact that you can't even provide any sort of sensible argument as to why we need AR-15 and assault rifles show that even you know it's completely unnecessary. And lot of "unnecessary" things don't end up killing people or are constantly used in murders as these guns are, so your counter yet again shows your ignorance.

 

And yet, mass shooters use AR-15 and similar guns, not hand guns. If you wanna prove me wrong, prove that handguns were used to hurt or kill at least 10 people without reloading or pausing.

 

Handguns and assault rifles are commonly used during mass shootings.

 

And yet, I still say handguns should be allowed while bigger magazines and assault rifles should be banned. That's called compromise, something most gun freaks can't do. Most guns should be privileges anyway, not rights. Not everyone should own a gun.

[Generations]

 

Nah I'll be good with it either way. I'm not sure you're really comprehending the whole "I don't care" thing.

 

To the contrary, you are clearly not comprehending the basis for "I don't care" actually meaning jack dick. You cant say "I don't care" and then go on to say that it's irrelevant because it will never happen. You know who cares about things that will never happen? Nobody. I don't care about rocket launchers being in every house (as a thing that will never happen) either. Which is exactly why your original statement is stupid as shit.

 

For your approval of private citizens owning rocket launchers to mean anything at all, you would need to be addressing the situation as a hypothetical reality. The moment you say "it will never happen anyway"...well, then you're basically just free to make whatever absurd claims you want. Which is where I call bullshit. Because no amount of you saying "I would be cool with it" means a goddamn thing.

 

Go spend some time in Somalia or something. Rocket launchers don't bother you ONLY because it's so unlikely to happen in the US, that you can run your mouth without consequence. So...here's the real question: If there was a ballot tomorrow...and it said "rocket launchers for private citizens...yay/nay"...you would vote yay? Would you would make that decision?...Or would your rational side kick in? Would you say "yeah...maybe not"? I mean...you are understanding where you contradict yourself, right? It's obvious to everyone here that you're only saying you'd be fine with rocket launchers because you aren't willing to accept that there is such a thing as "excessive firepower". I'm sure most of your fellow gun owners would vote "nay" on that ballot in a pretty definitive landslide...because common sense dictates it.

 

Honestly, you just sound like the macho type who says something like "the nuclear wasteland would be fun to explore"...disregarding all of the reasons why it absolutely wouldn't be. You have this romanticized idea of what guns are, and why people should own them...and you only harm your own argument when you claim that you support excessive firepower (especially something as *censored*ing stupid as rocket launchers). Right to bear arms. Check. I'm on board with that. Right to protect your home with a fire arm. Check. I'm on board with that. Right to own a weapon that exists solely for destruction? Nope...that's stupid.

[Bdon]

 

So apparently the security guard that was shot is missing

Must be Hillary's fault.

 

 

 

First, you're blowing this way out of proportion and assuming a lot of shit again. You're so damn easy to get worked up it's hilarious. Take a Xanax or something. You do realize that it's not going to be a thing, right? It's not going to be commonplace to have rocket launchers. Do I care if you have a rocket launcher? No. But no one is just going to have rocket launchers. Most gun owners are not going to go out and obtain rocket launchers. I don't know any that actually would, including myself. It's not even realistic to think everyone is just going to be able to get them. Pretty obvious there are those that probably shouldn't have access to something like that but as I said I really don't care if people acquire them. They're already regulated. I'm not up here acting like Oprah trying to hand out rocket launchers. Also pretty sure I never said all households should have rocket launchers and yet you quoted me saying it. That's how fake news gets started Gen. I just said I don't care if you got one. Whether or not I think you should is a different thing altogether.

 

You give me shit about proving things to strangers on the internet and yet here you are trying to call someone out that you know very little about on a wrestling game forum. That's what's sad. You think you're not a hypocrite? lol.

 

 

Exactly my point. It's easy for you to say that you're all good with something...when that thing is not a reality. I'm pretty sure that was my whole point...you saying stupid things.

 

Nah I'll be good with it either way. I'm not sure you're really comprehending the whole "I don't care" thing.

 

If you can't come up with an answer, just say so, no need to deflect or make a long post to avoid answering. And semiautomatic guns serve absolutely no purpose but to kill. But this will be chalked up to you being unable to answer why semiautomatic guns should be allowed.

 

And why do I have to answer again? I even quoted the answer in my reply to Kevin's question. If you can't understand, then that's on you. But let me simplify it for you: AR-15/semiautomatic guns kill many people with one round. Handguns kill fewer people with one round. Not as deadly.

 

Could the Vegas shooter have shot more than 500 people with two or three handguns? Doubt it.

I have answered multiple times. And again, it is my right. Plain and simple. And shall not be infringed. I don't have to explain shit to you beyond that. If I want one, I can go out and get one. I know you hate it, but you can't do shit about it and you'll never even know how satisfying that is to me. Especially because it's someone that doesn't know shit about firearms. It really doesn't matter if it's unnecessary. A lot of things are unnecessary and we have them soooo. And you do know that most handguns are semi-automatic, right? And can hit multiple people with one round if in the right position. You definitely come off as someone that doesn't know what they are talking about. The way you argue about guns, you can definitely tell.

 

Unless you're planning on mass shooting someone or something, there's no need for anything bigger than a handgun.

How am I limiting your rights to not own *censored*ing huge guns that are used in mass murders?

 

Last I recall, handguns don't help you kill tons of people with one round. If guns like AR-15 weren't used to kill people or in mass murders, I'd be okay with it even though it's still unnecessary.

It was kind of a mess but I found it. Again here. You sound ridiculous. First of all. Hunting rifles are bigger and far more powerful than a handgun. Most people have those so you just excluded most guns owned by gun owners. And again handguns are used most in mass murders. So you are contradicting yourself there...again.

 

You are wanting to limit rights by not wanting us to own guns period, really. Let's be honest here and AR-15's are not 'Huge' guns. Again you're coming off as uneducated, and badly. You don't know anything about the .223 round if you think it's huge compared to many other types of ammunition.

 

Lastly, ammo of many types can go through multiple people and objects, handgun ammo included. Most if not all can kill people with one round although not as common or easy as you make it sound for your argument. Word of advice. I wouldn't use that in arguments going forward with people unless you're just circle jerking with like minded people who wouldn't know any better. You just don't know anything about AR-15's and that's pretty plain to see. So maybe study and even go find one to shoot and learn about this shit before you start arguing against it. You're no different than those stay at home moms that share articles about vaccine's and autism and argue with doctors on Facebook. Oh and once again that last sentence is straight up contradicting to what you said. There is no way you can say that without including any guns at all. You might as well admit this is a straight up witch hunt for AR-15s.

 

"it's my right" is not a counter. And the fact that you can't even provide any sort of sensible argument as to why we need AR-15 and assault rifles show that even you know it's completely unnecessary. And lot of "unnecessary" things don't end up killing people or are constantly used in murders as these guns are, so your counter yet again shows your ignorance.

 

And yet, mass shooters use AR-15 and similar guns, not hand guns. If you wanna prove me wrong, prove that handguns were used to hurt or kill at least 10 people without reloading or pausing.

 

Handguns and assault rifles are commonly used during mass shootings.

 

And yet, I still say handguns should be allowed while bigger magazines and assault rifles should be banned. That's called compromise, something most gun freaks can't do. Most guns should be privileges anyway, not rights. Not everyone should own a gun.

 

Wrong. Drunk driving alone kills way more people and is completely unnecessary. Don't be a fool. And there is no statistical evidence or case to prove that that I know of. You just asked a near impossible question to answer. What good does that do? Now cases where handguns kills 10 or more people does exist. You are trying to manipulate the argument in your favor to make your argument look stronger but they non factors. Also they do make high capacity magazines for handguns so it is possible. And why did you just say mass shooters use AR-15's and not handguns, then the next sentence say they both are commonly used in mass shootings.

 

Now we're slipping in bigger magazines too. See this is the shit I'm talking about. You want one thing and then another. What's next? And I know this is your opinion but it will never be that way. I know you hate that guns are a right, here. But it will always be that way. You only think compromise is good because of your opinion. My right trumps that. It doesn't matter what you feel. And yes it's a perfectly good counter. I said it doesn't matter if they are unnecessary. They exist and will always exist. You just don't like the answer and you hate that I'm right. And we have the regulations necessary already. No further legislation will prevent anything. At this point it's just your sides little witch hunt.

[WNX]

Okay I skipped most of this page cause I'm on mobile and I don't know who is saying what in these wall of text anymore. I.had to comment on one thing Gen said though. I tend to stay out of convo like this because I don't know much on the topic.

 

The comment was something about calling bullshit on BDon being cool with [FTL] owning a rocket launcher. My landlord has several gun cases and ammo crate in the garage right next to the house. I never opened them, but I can only assume what's supposed to be in them is exactly what's in them(I've seen a few bullets just not in the case). He's hardly ever around, mostly working overseas in freighter stand oil rigs. He's got a military background and I.don't exactly know where his head is, what he's seen years prior, what he's been seeing recently . I've spoken to him in person maybe 3 times in the near 3 years I've been living there.

 

Despite all this, if i found out one of those cases actually had a rocket launcher in it, no I.would not be any.more fearful. So what? Just because he owns a launcher doesn't mean any day now he's gonna come home a send an RPG through the window. That's not even on the lists of my concerns.

 

You can't just go out and say you know somebody is going to act a certain way in the reality of a particular scenario. You have no clue, go and say Bdonwould care if his neighbor gets a rocket launcher. Maybe stop to think that maybe he really doesn't give a sheeit. We are all individuals. Individual minds with individual fears and individual concerns. The fact that the gun debate is even one here is proof enough

 

Never assume ANYTHING

[AONO.]

I get your point. But it's not even about that really.

 

Because that can be a double edged sword so to speak. You can't assume he will use the rocket launcher, but you also can't assume he won't?

 

That's where logic, reasoning and rational thinking come into play. Outweighing pros and cons,thinking about situations that can be avoided. Generations used a hyperbole and Bdons answers just prooved his point.

[Faster Than Light]

Really though, if unlimited gun rights is the be-all and end-all, maybe Somalia would be a better country to live in.

 

If people aren't interested in a solution or any compromise to do something about the mass shootings and gun violence that are undeniably coming more and more frequent, then well. gg.

 

Edit: I'm not going out of my way to read all the walls of text, but I never heard from Bdon or nwoKevin on their ideas to do something about this obvious problem, despite being asked (or at least the former). If I recall there was just a refusal to answer. Not even something even slight, or something that ultimately wouldn't have done anything at all. Just not interested in a solution. I don't see the point in continuing this discussion, really.

[maskedmaniac]

You can never assume a persons true nature based on just a few clues, regardless of how obvious they are or how well you may think you know them. Look at a guy like Bazooka Joe, I mean he never behaved violently or used firearms despite his name which otherwise would indicate he is a person derived from a vile or malevolent nature.

[KingKhan18]

 

Despite all this, if i found out one of those cases actually had a rocket launcher in it, no I.would not be any.more fearful. So what? Just because he owns a launcher doesn't mean any day now he's gonna come home a send an RPG through the window. That's not even on the lists of my concerns.

 

You can't assume that it wouldn't happen either. What if the rocket launcher went off on accident?

 

[M3J]

I don't think the gun lovers want to compromise at all. They just want to give more people more guns and blame the other side for refusing to compromise, which for them would be no gun control whatsoever and not caring if people shoot each other. I still have yet to see any reason why an AR-15 is necessary or why it shouldn't be banned. Fact remains we don't need guns bigger than a handgun.

 

It's sad how every time a tragedy like this happens, the right/gun lovers refuse to see that guns and lax gun control laws are the problem and would rather blame mental illness.

[King RyderFan]

I don't think the gun lovers want to compromise at all. They just want to give more people more guns and blame the other side for refusing to compromise, which for them would be no gun control whatsoever and not caring if people shoot each other. I still have yet to see any reason why an AR-15 is necessary or why it shouldn't be banned. Fact remains we don't need guns bigger than a handgun.

 

It's sad how every time a tragedy like this happens, the right/gun lovers refuse to see that guns and lax gun control laws are the problem and would rather blame mental illness.

More like you don't need guns at all. Guns only exist to hurt and damage. People can defend it with an ammendment which was written when the only guns around were muskets which took a full minute to reload or worrying about a goverment uprising as if Ol' Billy Bob and his shotgun will even stand the slightest chance against a team of highly trained infantry, fighter jets, tanks and god knows what else the militray is hiding.

[Mango kid]

That is true maybee we need update the constitution cuz the 2nd amendment was made when we only used black powder weapons not what we have now

[M3J]

 

I don't think the gun lovers want to compromise at all. They just want to give more people more guns and blame the other side for refusing to compromise, which for them would be no gun control whatsoever and not caring if people shoot each other. I still have yet to see any reason why an AR-15 is necessary or why it shouldn't be banned. Fact remains we don't need guns bigger than a handgun.

 

It's sad how every time a tragedy like this happens, the right/gun lovers refuse to see that guns and lax gun control laws are the problem and would rather blame mental illness.

More like you don't need guns at all. Guns only exist to hurt and damage. People can defend it with an ammendment which was written when the only guns around were muskets which took a full minute to reload or worrying about a goverment uprising as if Ol' Billy Bob and his shotgun will even stand the slightest chance against a team of highly trained infantry, fighter jets, tanks and god knows what else the militray is hiding.

 

That is half true. I mean, we might need guns to protect us against criminals or animals, and it can be used at a shooting range. we should focus more on making it harder for people or bad people to get guns, whether buying it or living with someone who can buy it.

[WNX]

 

Despite all this, if i found out one of those cases actually had a rocket launcher in it, no I.would not be any.more fearful. So what? Just because he owns a launcher doesn't mean any day now he's gonna come home a send an RPG through the window. That's not even on the lists of my concerns.

 

You can't assume that it wouldn't happen either. What if the rocket launcher went off on accident?

 

 

What, just like... by itself without any human interaction? A gas line could rupture in my house and the whole thing could go up. The house is old, wasn't built all that great to begin with, and there are warped ceiling beams and cracking wooden support pillars. Should I now be constantly on edge of my house coming down? Should I be constantly afraid that one of the trees is going to fall on the roof and crush me in my sleep? People fly up this hill in the winter, snow everywhere. It's a busy highway and I've always imagine the worse case scenario of somebody sliding right through my bedroom.

 

Even in the case of my neighbor's [ex-husband], he was out in the yard shooting at [coyotes] harassing his dogs in the middle of the night. I never even heard it, but after he told me about it I was never concerned about him putting a stray through the window, despite knowing he has a history of alcoholism (I believe that issue almost got him and his wife killed on the highway. Doctors were actually stumped as to why he survived the crash).

 

I could walk out of my door today and a raven could run beak first into my eye and I bleed out. Nothing is guaranteed, but I have too much going on to worry about how I'm going to die 10 minutes from now

[Bdon]

Really though, if unlimited gun rights is the be-all and end-all, maybe Somalia would be a better country to live in.

 

If people aren't interested in a solution or any compromise to do something about the mass shootings and gun violence that are undeniably coming more and more frequent, then well. gg.

 

Edit: I'm not going out of my way to read all the walls of text, but I never heard from Bdon or nwoKevin on their ideas to do something about this obvious problem, despite being asked (or at least the former). If I recall there was just a refusal to answer. Not even something even slight, or something that ultimately wouldn't have done anything at all. Just not interested in a solution. I don't see the point in continuing this discussion, really.

I already said that the current laws we have right now and the background checks performed now are as much as can do to actually prevent as much as possible. Any more is just hindering good people more. Anything else believed to work is a bunch of uneducated people crying about taking shit away that they know nothing about. They only assume it would work because they don't know dick about it. They just here the Young Turks or a bunch of dumbshit politicians say and are like "yeah"! The only way to stop it is if you had some magical power to get rid of the guns on the planet. Which is not possible.

 

 

I don't think the gun lovers want to compromise at all. They just want to give more people more guns and blame the other side for refusing to compromise, which for them would be no gun control whatsoever and not caring if people shoot each other. I still have yet to see any reason why an AR-15 is necessary or why it shouldn't be banned. Fact remains we don't need guns bigger than a handgun.

 

It's sad how every time a tragedy like this happens, the right/gun lovers refuse to see that guns and lax gun control laws are the problem and would rather blame mental illness.

More like you don't need guns at all. Guns only exist to hurt and damage. People can defend it with an ammendment which was written when the only guns around were muskets which took a full minute to reload or worrying about a goverment uprising as if Ol' Billy Bob and his shotgun will even stand the slightest chance against a team of highly trained infantry, fighter jets, tanks and god knows what else the militray is hiding.

 

Oh I'm sorry. Do you speak for me? Do you even live in the states?

Also wrong. Plenty of guns designed in that time and well before actually, fired multiple consecutive shots and if you think our founding fathers weren't aware or even aware that technology would progress then you are a fool. That's why it was written as simple and clear as it was. I don't suppose you were taught history or you actually don't pay attention to ours. Why even bother commenting on an issue when you don't know?

That is true maybee we need update the constitution cuz the 2nd amendment was made when we only used black powder weapons not what we have now

Again wrong.

 

 

 

I don't think the gun lovers want to compromise at all. They just want to give more people more guns and blame the other side for refusing to compromise, which for them would be no gun control whatsoever and not caring if people shoot each other. I still have yet to see any reason why an AR-15 is necessary or why it shouldn't be banned. Fact remains we don't need guns bigger than a handgun.

 

It's sad how every time a tragedy like this happens, the right/gun lovers refuse to see that guns and lax gun control laws are the problem and would rather blame mental illness.

More like you don't need guns at all. Guns only exist to hurt and damage. People can defend it with an ammendment which was written when the only guns around were muskets which took a full minute to reload or worrying about a goverment uprising as if Ol' Billy Bob and his shotgun will even stand the slightest chance against a team of highly trained infantry, fighter jets, tanks and god knows what else the militray is hiding.

 

That is half true. I mean, we might need guns to protect us against criminals or animals, and it can be used at a shooting range. we should focus more on making it harder for people or bad people to get guns, whether buying it or living with someone who can buy it.

 

And how will you stop bad people from getting them oh wise one. I hear that all the time and no one can explain how all these nifty new laws that we could put in place, would actually stop bad guys from getting them or hurting people. It's a pipe dream. I think you spend too much time focusing on calling people out for not being willing to help or compromise that it prevents you from accepting that there is no more you can do to stop it. Maybe you know it deep down and won't accept it idk. So since you don't care about guns as much then who cares if we're limiting good people more. We have to try something cause "muh feels".

[LEGION]

 

Really though, if unlimited gun rights is the be-all and end-all, maybe Somalia would be a better country to live in.

 

If people aren't interested in a solution or any compromise to do something about the mass shootings and gun violence that are undeniably coming more and more frequent, then well. gg.

 

Edit: I'm not going out of my way to read all the walls of text, but I never heard from Bdon or nwoKevin on their ideas to do something about this obvious problem, despite being asked (or at least the former). If I recall there was just a refusal to answer. Not even something even slight, or something that ultimately wouldn't have done anything at all. Just not interested in a solution. I don't see the point in continuing this discussion, really.

I already said that the current laws we have right now and the background checks performed now are as much as can do to actually prevent as much as possible. Any more is just hindering good people more. Anything else believed to work is a bunch of uneducated people crying about taking shit away that they know nothing about. They only assume it would work because they don't know dick about it. They just here the Young Turks or a bunch of dumbshit politicians say and are like "yeah"! The only way to stop it is if you had some magical power to get rid of the guns on the planet. Which is not possible.

 

 

I don't think the gun lovers want to compromise at all. They just want to give more people more guns and blame the other side for refusing to compromise, which for them would be no gun control whatsoever and not caring if people shoot each other. I still have yet to see any reason why an AR-15 is necessary or why it shouldn't be banned. Fact remains we don't need guns bigger than a handgun.

 

It's sad how every time a tragedy like this happens, the right/gun lovers refuse to see that guns and lax gun control laws are the problem and would rather blame mental illness.

More like you don't need guns at all. Guns only exist to hurt and damage. People can defend it with an ammendment which was written when the only guns around were muskets which took a full minute to reload or worrying about a goverment uprising as if Ol' Billy Bob and his shotgun will even stand the slightest chance against a team of highly trained infantry, fighter jets, tanks and god knows what else the militray is hiding.

 

Oh I'm sorry. Do you speak for me? Do you even live in the states?

Also wrong. Plenty of guns designed in that time and well before actually, fired multiple consecutive shots and if you think our founding fathers weren't aware or even aware that technology would progress then you are a fool. That's why it was written as simple and clear as it was. I don't suppose you were taught history or you actually don't pay attention to ours. Why even bother commenting on an issue when you don't know?

That is true maybee we need update the constitution cuz the 2nd amendment was made when we only used black powder weapons not what we have now

Again wrong.

 

 

 

I don't think the gun lovers want to compromise at all. They just want to give more people more guns and blame the other side for refusing to compromise, which for them would be no gun control whatsoever and not caring if people shoot each other. I still have yet to see any reason why an AR-15 is necessary or why it shouldn't be banned. Fact remains we don't need guns bigger than a handgun.

 

It's sad how every time a tragedy like this happens, the right/gun lovers refuse to see that guns and lax gun control laws are the problem and would rather blame mental illness.

More like you don't need guns at all. Guns only exist to hurt and damage. People can defend it with an ammendment which was written when the only guns around were muskets which took a full minute to reload or worrying about a goverment uprising as if Ol' Billy Bob and his shotgun will even stand the slightest chance against a team of highly trained infantry, fighter jets, tanks and god knows what else the militray is hiding.

 

That is half true. I mean, we might need guns to protect us against criminals or animals, and it can be used at a shooting range. we should focus more on making it harder for people or bad people to get guns, whether buying it or living with someone who can buy it.

 

And how will you stop bad people from getting them oh wise one. I hear that all the time and no one can explain how all these nifty new laws that we could put in place, would actually stop bad guys from getting them or hurting people. It's a pipe dream. I think you spend too much time focusing on calling people out for not being willing to help or compromise that it prevents you from accepting that there is no more you can do to stop it. Maybe you know it deep down and won't accept it idk. So since you don't care about guns as much then who cares if we're limiting good people more. We have to try something cause "muh feels".

 

Plenty of people have answered you that in several political topics. Not sure why you just ignore and/or forget them.

[Bdon]

 

 

Really though, if unlimited gun rights is the be-all and end-all, maybe Somalia would be a better country to live in.

 

If people aren't interested in a solution or any compromise to do something about the mass shootings and gun violence that are undeniably coming more and more frequent, then well. gg.

 

Edit: I'm not going out of my way to read all the walls of text, but I never heard from Bdon or nwoKevin on their ideas to do something about this obvious problem, despite being asked (or at least the former). If I recall there was just a refusal to answer. Not even something even slight, or something that ultimately wouldn't have done anything at all. Just not interested in a solution. I don't see the point in continuing this discussion, really.

I already said that the current laws we have right now and the background checks performed now are as much as can do to actually prevent as much as possible. Any more is just hindering good people more. Anything else believed to work is a bunch of uneducated people crying about taking shit away that they know nothing about. They only assume it would work because they don't know dick about it. They just here the Young Turks or a bunch of dumbshit politicians say and are like "yeah"! The only way to stop it is if you had some magical power to get rid of the guns on the planet. Which is not possible.

 

 

I don't think the gun lovers want to compromise at all. They just want to give more people more guns and blame the other side for refusing to compromise, which for them would be no gun control whatsoever and not caring if people shoot each other. I still have yet to see any reason why an AR-15 is necessary or why it shouldn't be banned. Fact remains we don't need guns bigger than a handgun.

 

It's sad how every time a tragedy like this happens, the right/gun lovers refuse to see that guns and lax gun control laws are the problem and would rather blame mental illness.

More like you don't need guns at all. Guns only exist to hurt and damage. People can defend it with an ammendment which was written when the only guns around were muskets which took a full minute to reload or worrying about a goverment uprising as if Ol' Billy Bob and his shotgun will even stand the slightest chance against a team of highly trained infantry, fighter jets, tanks and god knows what else the militray is hiding.

 

Oh I'm sorry. Do you speak for me? Do you even live in the states?

Also wrong. Plenty of guns designed in that time and well before actually, fired multiple consecutive shots and if you think our founding fathers weren't aware or even aware that technology would progress then you are a fool. That's why it was written as simple and clear as it was. I don't suppose you were taught history or you actually don't pay attention to ours. Why even bother commenting on an issue when you don't know?

That is true maybee we need update the constitution cuz the 2nd amendment was made when we only used black powder weapons not what we have now

Again wrong.

 

 

 

I don't think the gun lovers want to compromise at all. They just want to give more people more guns and blame the other side for refusing to compromise, which for them would be no gun control whatsoever and not caring if people shoot each other. I still have yet to see any reason why an AR-15 is necessary or why it shouldn't be banned. Fact remains we don't need guns bigger than a handgun.

 

It's sad how every time a tragedy like this happens, the right/gun lovers refuse to see that guns and lax gun control laws are the problem and would rather blame mental illness.

More like you don't need guns at all. Guns only exist to hurt and damage. People can defend it with an ammendment which was written when the only guns around were muskets which took a full minute to reload or worrying about a goverment uprising as if Ol' Billy Bob and his shotgun will even stand the slightest chance against a team of highly trained infantry, fighter jets, tanks and god knows what else the militray is hiding.

 

That is half true. I mean, we might need guns to protect us against criminals or animals, and it can be used at a shooting range. we should focus more on making it harder for people or bad people to get guns, whether buying it or living with someone who can buy it.

 

And how will you stop bad people from getting them oh wise one. I hear that all the time and no one can explain how all these nifty new laws that we could put in place, would actually stop bad guys from getting them or hurting people. It's a pipe dream. I think you spend too much time focusing on calling people out for not being willing to help or compromise that it prevents you from accepting that there is no more you can do to stop it. Maybe you know it deep down and won't accept it idk. So since you don't care about guns as much then who cares if we're limiting good people more. We have to try something cause "muh feels".

 

Plenty of people have answered you that in several political topics. Not sure why you just ignore and/or forget them.

 

No they really don't. Read what I said at the end. I asked how would that stop them? Just banning AR-15's and more background checks? No one ever explains how they would actually go about doing them . What about the AR's purchased in the last few years? Do they get grandfathered in or is there a buy back? What extent of background checks could you actually add? They obviously don't know that the background check process for purchasing a gun is one of the most extensive types they can run on a person. They are basically implying that someone try to figure out who will snap before it happens when that is an impossibility. They are grasping at straws and as vague as they can be. They don't actually know what will help short of a confiscation and that won't happen. Even if it did it wouldn't stop it. They are willing to give up almost every ounce of liberty we have for a slightest bit of security and they won't get either. So no I'm not ignoring. Just no one has put up a convincing argument or idea.

 

[sam the d00d]

I still feel like everybody ignores the need for guns in the street just to feel safe. The cops aren't going to rush to "the hood" to help in many cases. A lot of people have to protect themselves. To say nobody needs a gun is just ignorant and shows that you come from a place of privilege.

[King RyderFan]

I still feel like everybody ignores the need for guns in the street just to feel safe. The cops aren't going to rush to "the hood" to help in many cases. A lot of people have to protect themselves. To say nobody needs a gun is just ignorant and shows that you come from a place of privilege.

Yeah, being unemployed for over 4 years is a real "privilege".

[sam the d00d]

Yes because privilege only pertains to that one specific aspect of your life personally lol

[Bdon]

I still feel like everybody ignores the need for guns in the street just to feel safe. The cops aren't going to rush to "the hood" to help in many cases. A lot of people have to protect themselves. To say nobody needs a gun is just ignorant and shows that you come from a place of privilege.

 

I actually agree to a point. Most though are just those that either grew up in an entirely different culture and/or live in a place where they can't have them. The UK has heavy restrictions on most firearms so they wouldn't exactly understand the desire or need or even a real reason to have firearms like in America. But they don't have a 2nd amendment and that is kind of the point. It doesn't really matter if they don't understand. It doesn't really apply to them. Of course they have plenty of violence over there which has risen in the last couple of years including gun and knife murders and they all still think bats and rubber bullets will be sufficient enough for them.

 

When it comes down to it. It's easy for those that live in areas with heavy restrictions to not care about firearms. It's also easy for others in other countries to say that gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right. Well for them it may be true but for Americans it isn't and they either don't get that or they can't stand it. For those that hate guns here just hate the fact it's a right and not Healthcare.

 

You also made a good point about the cops too. Funny that those that hated the cops a month ago only think cops and the government should have guns.

[King RyderFan]

Yes because privilege only pertains to that one specific aspect of your life personally lol

I never said it did. I was just saying that to write everyone off from the UK as "privileged" is pretty damn ignorant.

[Bdon]

 

Yes because privilege only pertains to that one specific aspect of your life personally lol

I never said it did. I was just saying that to write everyone off from the UK as "privileged" is pretty damn ignorant.

 

He didn't though. You inserted yourself into that. Yes, writing off the UK as "privileged" is ignorant. But writing you off as ignorant about our rights and gun laws is a pretty safe bet. At least your ability to understand it on the same level.

 

[sam the d00d]

 

Yes because privilege only pertains to that one specific aspect of your life personally lol

I never said it did. I was just saying that to write everyone off from the UK as "privileged" is pretty damn ignorant.

 

 

You are privileged if you can feel safe without a gun. It's not a luxury everybody has.

 

I still feel like everybody ignores the need for guns in the street just to feel safe. The cops aren't going to rush to "the hood" to help in many cases. A lot of people have to protect themselves. To say nobody needs a gun is just ignorant and shows that you come from a place of privilege.

 

I actually agree to a point. Most though are just those that either grew up in an entirely different culture and/or live in a place where they can't have them. The UK has heavy restrictions on most firearms so they wouldn't exactly understand the desire or need or even a real reason to have firearms like in America. But they don't have a 2nd amendment and that is kind of the point. It doesn't really matter if they don't understand. It doesn't really apply to them. Of course they have plenty of violence over there which has risen in the last couple of years including gun and knife murders and they all still think bats and rubber bullets will be sufficient enough for them.

 

When it comes down to it. It's easy for those that live in areas with heavy restrictions to not care about firearms. It's also easy for others in other countries to say that gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right. Well for them it may be true but for Americans it isn't and they either don't get that or they can't stand it. For those that hate guns here just hate the fact it's a right and not Healthcare.

 

You also made a good point about the cops too. Funny that those that hated the cops a month ago only think cops and the government should have guns.

 

 

I think the conclusions I've come to were easier to reach with my background. My dad used to hunt; there was a gun case in the garage when I was growing up; did lots of target shooting/clay pigeon shooting when I was in the scouts as a kid, learned a lot about gun safety there; and have shot them for fun a time or two. I never felt that they were essential to my life personally. I could certainly live quite happily without them in my life. But I think my stance on this is pretty consistent to my general ideology and I genuinely think I'd come to the same conclusion if I grew up in the suburbs or something.

 

And yeah the idea of the militarized American police force being the only people with guns in the country sounds *censored*ing terrifying to me. People really don't think about the next step when they start talking about general bans.