Saying school shootings are a necessary evil is absolutely ridiculous.
Everyone having the right to own a gun is idiotic.
Printable View
Saying school shootings are a necessary evil is absolutely ridiculous.
Everyone having the right to own a gun is idiotic.
Pretty sure that whoever wrote that 2nd amendment never meant it that way, and never meant to cause so much harm. If he was still around he'd probably be quick to amend or clarify his amendment to help you guys stop killing each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
As for some of the recent supreme court rulings, they couldn't be further from the original intention. Probably NRA puppets just like the House and Senate.
and school shooting = useless evil, wtf
But next time it could be 1, 2, 10 or 100. /sarcasmQuote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
The worst mass killing at a school didn't use guns.
School shootings are a necessary evil in the same way that school stabbings are a necessary evil. It's not ridiculous to state a plain truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by seven-deuce
Simple example: Somewhere, sometime, there has been a kid who was killed by another kid at school by being beaten in the head with a rock. That killing with a rock is a necessary evil of us tolerating rocks to the point that we do not ban them.
Your second statement doesn't describe the United States.
The second amendment does not cause harm. To believe so is a misunderstanding of what cause is.Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
As an aside, compared to the number of other ridiculous things that people die from, not that many people are killed by guns each year in the United States.
- a militia is not necessary anymore because you have a permanent armyQuote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
- random unrelated armed citizens shooting each other do not constitute a well organized militia and are detrimental to security
-> obsolete shit -> delete
That was copied from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, but they at least have had the sense to evolve since then.
(see Joseph Story commentary in the Wiki article, it's hilarious)
Drastic failure at logic in the bold parts above.Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
The only difference is rocks occur naturally, guns are man made for the sole purpose of killing.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
The archaic belief that everyone has the right to own a gun is idiotic because it operates under the assumption everyone is responsible enough and stable enough to own a gun when it's blatantly obvious this isn't the case.
Everybody should not have the right to own a gun, allowing anyone and everyone access to firearms that were designed for one purpose only, to kill, is a recipe for disaster.
School shootings are a perfect example of this.
It does not operate under this assumption. Another logical failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by seven-deuce
The notion that every gun is designed with the primary intention to kill is unimaginative. But it's a silly point to make on my part.
It seems to me the holder's intent is the dangerous part, no matter the object or its manufacturer's intent.
Sad truth:
If every gun on the planet were eliminated, people would go back to crossbows and any other implementation of delivering a rock at range.
Ding ding ding.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Epic logic fail. An intent has never killed anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Besides, "intent" does not take into account those victims who get shot unintentionally, or cases where the shooter did not achieve what he intended (for example killing instead of intentionally injuring).
Assuming you more correctly meant to say that it is the gun holder who could be dangerous, for example because being reckless, aggressive, irresponsible, impaired, incompetent, complacent or dumb, I would find it difficult to deny that this person represents less risk to others and himself without a gun than with one (if any: for example an otherwise normal person incompetent with firearms is only dangerous when handling a firearm).
If someone intended to kill someone else and realized his intention using a gun, he would generally have a far greater chance of success than if he acted using his bare hands (assuming reasonable basic proficiency with the gun).
In the same order of idea, the chance of success is generally far greater using a (semi-)automatic big caliber gun than with a single shot .22, a crossbow or a knife.
So having a gun gives a potential perpetrator the opportunity to realize a killing intent as fast and efficiently as can be, with very little chance of being stopped before the victim is dead, with minimal risk to his own person, and including when the intent is extremely temporary and related to a sudden impulse (see Renton's iPhone story in his posts above for an example).
Consequently, the availability or unavailability of a firearm may sway the intender between realizing his intention or not (i.e. "I'd like to kill him but, not having a gun, my chances of success are slim to none so I am not going to try").
More so, having a gun or not may very well change the intention of a person altogether in a given situation (for example flee without a gun vs fight with a gun, or run after a car thief with a gun vs staying put without a gun).
All guns that fire live ammo are designed with the primary intention of killing. They were originally developed to fight wars and kill with as much efficiency as possible constantly becoming more accurate and reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
They fire a bullet accurately towards whatever you aim at, at 1000ft a sec or more, tell me what else is this useful for?
Also agree with daviddem people will react differently to certain situations depending on whether they have a gun or not.
What do you think poses a greater threat to human life, crossbows and catapults, or semi-automatic handguns and fully automatic weapons?
Guns are designed to kill that's indisputable.
Guns don't kill people, rappers do.
This argument is going no where.
Most Americans like guns and don't they should be banned.
Most Europeans don't like guns and are glad they're banned.
(trying hard not to put in a sneery comment)
Who said we wanted it to go somewhere? If we can't argue and troll for the sake of it on the intrawebs now, what are we going to do all day?Quote:
Originally Posted by WillburForce
See this is where you're all wrong. It's going somewhere. Toot toot, motherfucker. Here comes the spoon train, about to penetrate your candy ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
hard candy ittQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/origi...6-18-42-19.jpg
I post on an American football board and a gun topic came up in the community. Of course there I am actually arguing more as the anti-gun or at least anti-uber powerful weapony side.
Everybody hates the moderate.
What went on in that pic?Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
That's a pretty extremist view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
TraincrashQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
http://newshopper.sulekha.com/india-...to_1124374.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Logic is a weapon that hits hard
Vid here http://youtu.be/-ntrOHj0vPoQuote:
Predictably, Fox News used the news of a stabbing spree at a Houston college campus yesterday to advocate for more guns on campus. Today, on America Live, Megyn Kelly hosted hero student Stephen Maida who had tackled the stabber and brought him down with “just my fists.” And for no other apparent reason than to politicize it, she included in the discussion a Texas state senator who made the ridiculous argument that the entire situation proved the need for concealed guns on campus. Unfortunately for him, Maida wasn’t buying it.
Mediaite’s Matt Wilstein caught the flaw in Republican State Senator Dan Patrick’s argument that host Megyn Kelly seemed to miss:
Heaping praise of Maida, who he called a “hero,” Patrick asked what would have happened had the assailant been carrying a gun instead of a knife. “Stephen would have been helpless. He may have tried to tackle him with a gun, but he may have been shot.” By creating this hypothetical, Patrick glossed over the two major facts about this story that make it unique precisely because there were no guns involved: no one died and students were able to take down the assailant.
But Maida got it. He totally shot down Patrick's theory:
Seeing them with a gun just would worry me more. And to know how easy they get provoked and how crazy they can be. This kid, instead of stabbing people, he could have been shooting all 14 people and all 14 people could have been dead.
Of course, Patrick tried to keep arguing, saying that Maida missed the point. But it’s hard to dispute the perspective of the kid who brought down a potential killer with his bare hands. Nor the fact that what could easily have been another mass slaughter actually resulted in no deaths.
That's hilarious. Yah let's start an arms race between toddlers, great thinking! XD
All people are potential killers. Excellent logic there.Quote:
But it’s hard to dispute the perspective of the kid who brought down a potential killer with his bare hands.
You're smarter than to use this type of weak argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnowYou're smarter than to use this type of weak argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
Consistency, not even once.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Says the potential rapist.Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
Says the guy who intended to train-wreck my candy ass two posts ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Just sayin'.
Common sense. Where because it works in one instance every time, I'm allowed to generalize.
Common sense. Where because it doesn't work in one novel instance once, no one cares because it's common sense.
Common sense; where because someone with a vanishingly small chance of ever killing someone in his lifetime and Ted Bundy at age 1 have a nonzero chance of eventually killing, everyone is a possible killer.
It's just common sense.
PS so long as he hangs at 9999 posts, he can't respond. So he's just got to swallow the fact that he's being real dumb. Like super dumb. Like dumber than dumb and then some. So entirely dumb that dumb itself is tripping over itself and starting to realize how dumb dumb is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=4b-ztawuh98
thoughts? here is a more comprehensive look at the overall situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_sho..._United_States
See this is an example of something that I think is crazy, bordering on comical. The funny part of it is, is that just having that thought would make me an anti-gun commie in some peoples' eyes. That is how far the spectrum is being pushed and how contentious and for/against the whole topic can be.
The Second Amendment also says I can own Pit Bulls.
I love this country!
Can carry a submachinegun, can legally call your Son Bacongrease and marry your own cusin, but can't even jerk off on the bus. Where are your personal freedoms now?
The first and foremost absurd thing in there is every state having its own rules and regulations. It's pretty much like having a different traffic code for every state. You can't possibly have a nationwide consistent policy in these conditions. There should at the very least be a strong federal framework within which the states can be more restrictive than the federal framework if they wish to, but not more lax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
And then yes, of course, what's the point of having any safeguards in place if there is an obvious and easy way to avoid them.
Renton did you not notice, that I copied your comments from fb and posted them here?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingnat
genius. when's f'n rep coming back alreadyQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Yeah I noticed!Quote:
Originally Posted by kingnat
Back on topic
http://seemydeath.com/murders/4517-b...#axzz2QfV5ObVf
I find this quite endearing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_WTjjPyd2s
These two are quite popular, I like their videos, they seem nice enough. They work in a gun store, they are both outspoken about carrying a gun absolutely everywhere and they know their fair share about them, yet between them they admit to having accidentally shot through walls and floors a good half a dozen times in their life.
I know this does nothing to further any debate since the argument is that guns are needed in the increasingly likely case that zombi hitler will return and take over the US government in which case the common man will naturally be the last line of defence.
Dear god. People like these two are the reason people laugh at the US. Just fucking unbelievable....Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
First reference:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
States that out of 31,672 gun related deaths, 11,078 were counts of homicide. I'm not a statistician, but that graphic does not seem to represent this number to me. There is no mention of the counts of gun related deaths in self defense as far as I can tell, and looking at different sources the numbers gathered from surveys vary by over 500% so to present this as if there was a conclusive number for those statistics seems very manipulative.
I am admittedly confused how these numbers go together. Does this mean that 2/3rds of gun related deaths were accidental? Or does it not count sucidide as homicide. In any case the graphic is bullshit.
Not to mention: HOW FUCKING INEPT HAVE THOSE CRIMINALS HAVE TO BE!
Victims: 88.5, criminals: 1?
I don't even know why I'm still at this...
WP, Spoon.
l2readQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Are you literally licking your monitor right now or are you trolling. I can't even tell anymore.
Criminals Killed Each Year:
Police: 606
Armed Citizens: 1527
Is this supposed to cast armed citizenry in a positive light? Because I'm not seeing it that way. First of all, there are far too many variables to make this direct statistical comparison meaningful in the slightest-- but even with all things being equal, the roll of the police is not to kill criminals. The lower the number, the better. We have a judiciary system for a reason.
I definitely lean towards gun control, but I think it is a very nuanced issue. Abusing and misrepresenting statistics to "win" the debate is pretty much the nut low. You're a smart guy spoon, aside from trolling, why do you insist on reducing the debate to a win at all costs shit slinging event?
Hearing you fucks moan about gun control is like listening to 80-year-old congressmen talk about the Internet.
Little pictures like that are usually full of bollocks. An argument about gun control and whether it's right or wrong can't be summed up in a little picture and a post like that just makes the argument look idiotic.
"Despite stricter gun control Europe has had 3 of the worst 6 school shootings".
America has 33, 9, 6, 6 as it's highest.
Europe has 9 & one 6.
So that's 2/6 of the worst shootings.
The 9 happened in Finland, which has one of the highest gun ownerships according to the graph itself.
The 6 happened in Germany, where you can own a gun.
LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, A GENIUSQuote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Even if you are trolling, it's not even clever.
If you were to say: Gun control laws dry out my vagina, make me permanently flaccid, give me hemorrhoids just to think about!
Those are valid points! We'd have to debate you on that! But to post an image with baseless numbers and a video of someone shooting someone - what is that? Why would that... I don't...
http://anongallery.org/img/6957/hey-...es-on-them.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yeah but he was black.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Do you think that that would make me angry or make me laugh? I think I should tell you that I could not feel more indifferent if I tried. I have stronger feelings about oatmeal than I have about that comment. Whatever it is you're trying to do, you're falling short on all fronts.
Dude this is the most racist thing I think I've ever heard in my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Do you think that I would be offended by racism? You realize I'm austrian, right? We basically invented racism.
You sound ethnic.
That stat about guns being used in self defence - surely must be flawed, as presumably they were defending against a gun??? So therefore it would always swing the other way???????
What they were defending against isn't broken down in the stats, but criminals will have guns whether they are legal or not, so it's not entirely relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by WillburForce
yes, but is shooting back at them the best solution?
As opposed to letting criminals assault you, rape you and/or take anything they want from you at any given time? Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
Are there much less assaults, rapes and robberies in the USA than in other developed countries?
I can assure you that in England the vast majority of crimes that take place people don't have guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
If someone pulls a knife out of me when I'm walking home one night and tells me to give him my wallet. I make the decision if I want to risk getting stabbed or just give the guy my wallet, which is never going to have a huge amount of money in as I'm not an idiot who carries loads of cash. If we change this scenario to both of us having guns, I make the same decision pretty much. I either give him my wallet or risk getting shot, the only difference is there is now a chance I shoot him too. And I don't think shooting someone is a valid respone to them trying to mug me.
You'll find that Americans are just more likely to be paranoid into thinking they are going to get mugged/raped/whatever. Due to the constant fear their press makes them think that they are under all the time.
Never thought of it from that perspective actually - if you're robbing somebody and are 100% sure they don't have a gun, there's no reason to carry one either.
The bold isn't true at all. Having a gun would give you a huge advantage, and it's absurd to think that criminals would not take advantage of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
Be that as it may, how come the whole of Europe/Japan etc aren't completely run over by armed criminals?
It doesn't. It increases risk much more than it increases reward. A weapon is just needed to scare people, the idea is to not actually use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Having a gun = more jail time.
Having a gun = more chance of you killing someone = more jail time
Having a gun = more chance of you getting killed
Having a gun =/= The person you are robbing will magically be carrying more that you can rob.
Mind you, having lived in northern England, I can tell you that it wouldn't surprise me if crime rates were higher there than in most parts of the US. I can say the opposite about places like Germany or Japan. What I'm saying is, from my experience, crimes like muggings and robberies correlate to high poverty rates, and there are other ways to combat that than simply threatening to shoot them.
ITT people have no right to defend themselves or their property.
Because cops have guns too.Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YakuzaQuote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
And you suppose that the armed American populace has prevented organized crime rings to happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Regardless, Japan is one of the safest places to be, which is why Japanese tourists get owned when they go abroad and meet harsh reality.
I have a cricket bat handy. Break into my house when I'm in and I'll happy smack it around your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
But you could kill someone?! How do they let JUST ANYBODY have a cricket bat??Quote:
Originally Posted by WillburForce
Because with a cricket bat you can also, uhm, play cricket withQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I would have thought the reply to spoons argument was that you can kill someone with a banana too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Are u sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...qoh31W8zrRY4Eg
There are lots of other things that you can do with a gun besides kill someone, so the logic doesn't hold that guns should be banned just because they can be used to kill. Their designed purpose is irrelevant to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Once again Spoon: Just because you state something doesn't make it true. Unless you can explain it, your statement is the thing that is irrelevant.
I have worked hard all my life for the things I own. Will I use a gun to defend me and my stuff? Definitely. Would I have shot the guy in the head? No. I would have just wounded him. Give him a little reminder not to mess with peoples stuff ever again.
And it's because it's idiots like you who want to have guns, people who don't care for guns don't want you to have guns. Even most gun owners will tell you that shooting to wound is a horribly bad choice and shows no foresight whatsoever. If your brain activity is so clinically low that you cannot understand why shooting to piss someone off is a bad idea, you should not be allowed to own a gun. You are quite simply too stupid to own a gun. Even Spoonitnow: Resident pole licker and redneck extraordinaire will tell you that you are being retarded. This is how dumb what you just said is.
Wow you really are clueless.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Spoon, have you ever been mugged or raped?
Can't it be both?Quote:
Originally Posted by WillburForce
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by WillburForce
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/up...n-dad-meme.jpg
I know this isn't an argument in and of itself, but you ought to know your opinion is stupid when it is shared by the father on American Dad.
Cars kill more people than guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Penneywize
In other news, most domestic violence (both minor and serious) is committed by women according to the Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science.
What classes as domestic violence?
And do you mean they win both categories minor & serious, or if you combine the two they come out on top?
They win both individually.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ex-crimes.htmlQuote:
While 10.8 per cent of the men surveyed had pushed, grabbed or thrown objects at their spouses, 12.4 per cent of women had done so too. And although 2.5 per cent of men used serious violence, so did 4.7 per cent of women.
Marilyn Kwong, who carried out the new analysis, also examined eight other studies and found the pattern was universal. Inconvenient facts had been cut out.
DID YOU GUYS KNOW AN APPLE IS A FRUIT LIKE A BANANA BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THINGS AND THOSE ARE THINGS!
You're an idiot