Jump to content


Photo

Another American School Shooting


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
118 replies to this topic

#81 xLEGACYx

xLEGACYx

    King of Kings

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Guarding Arkham Asylum
  • Interests:manipulating the minds of inmates

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:44 PM

Not avoiding the question, I wouldn't be able to do anything. Obviously. I'd beg and plead for him to leave my family alone and give him some material object to make him go away. While the government wouldn't go into every single home to check for guns, they'd ban guns. So technically keeping the gun makes that person a criminal. The government can give incentive to give the guns back. Guns would remain on the streets, but the numbers wouldn't increase.

You can't compare illegal drugs to illegal guns. You can grow weed in your closet. You can't manufacture guns in your closet. You can combine random Walgreens shit to make some drugs. You can't go to Walgreens and buy spare gun parts and combine them.

your right but what good does it do for again the law abiding citizen to give up his guns and the criminal to keep his. Yeah its illegal for him to own it but what does he care since its illegal to rob and murder. So then you essentially gave up your only chance to defend your self willingly against a criminal who refused to give up his.


also comparing drugs to guns is very logical. While yes it may make them harder to get, like drugs; criminals would still be able to get them

How is this for gun laws
Posted Image

#82 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:53 PM

Criminals would still be able to get them, but probably not your random local burglar. If you ban guns and actually crack down on such cases, it'll be increasingly difficult for such criminals to get guns. Also banning guns would make tracing things a lot easier. If a gun is involved, boom, lock them all up.

#83 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:53 PM

Okay. Does anyone remember the story of the kid who broke into his own house as a prank and was killed by his dad for it? Yeah. I
For Hayes, you say that one life is worth as much as a hundred. So what the fuck are you going to do with a gun? Use it for what? All a gun is going to do is kill someone. Take a life which you so highly value. Someone breaks into your house and you just kill them? Robbery is bad, yeah, but is it worth taking their life? If so, then don't give anyone that "one life is worth a hundred" bullshit because one life clearly doesn't mean shit to you.

Innocent lives matter to me. You are really comparing a 7 year old to a thief? If someone is breaking into my house and they have any weapon, than yes he will go down in a grave. Not that his life matters doesn't mean anything to me, my life doesn't matter more than his, but my family's lives do.

#84 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:55 PM

I'll leave it at that. These arguments never go anywhere anyways. No point in arguing, nothing we say here will change anything.

#85 xLEGACYx

xLEGACYx

    King of Kings

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Guarding Arkham Asylum
  • Interests:manipulating the minds of inmates

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:56 PM

Criminals would still be able to get them, but probably not your random local burglar. If you ban guns and actually crack down on such cases, it'll be increasingly difficult for such criminals to get guns. Also banning guns would make tracing things a lot easier. If a gun is involved, boom, lock them all up.

If a gun is involved they are locked up. Problem is that criminals will still get them. My only assumption is you havent read the article or watched the video. Those are two examples that cant be ignored

#86 xLEGACYx

xLEGACYx

    King of Kings

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Guarding Arkham Asylum
  • Interests:manipulating the minds of inmates

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:59 PM

I'll leave it at that. These arguments never go anywhere anyways. No point in arguing, nothing we say here will change anything.

your right cause its all an opinion. Problem is others want to take that opinion away by taking away that right. It should be a choice, like now; to own a gun or not. While yes stricter laws and more law enforcement securities could be put in place, the right to own a gun should not be taken away.

#87 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:29 PM

These arguments are so unbelievably stupid. And the funny thing is Legacy can't even come up with them by himself, he has to find macros from some far right wing website (Maybe Fox News' Facebook page). Let's pick apart these stupid images first, and then the arguments of the idiot who posted them.

The Liberal Logic 101 Poster- More like Conservative Logic. All those laws don't matter, and don't pertain to the one being debated, because the fact is if that dude didn't have a gun in the first place, none of those laws would have been broken. Faulty logic.

The pic about the bomber and Sam Jackson- In fact, fertilizer and racing fuel is HEAVILY restricted now, more so than guns by a long shot. And here we have a peculiarity. One bombing, and we restrict fertilizer and racing fuel. One dude carries a liquid bomb in his underwear on a plane, the whole world bans liquids on planes. One dude carries a knife on a plane, any kind of weapons are now banned throughout the world. Multiple mass shootings occur in a short time span and nothing gets done about guns? Someone should make a macro about that. And yes, killers will always be there, that's not the damn point, the point is that now they don't have something ready to kill with. That argument is so flawed, so stupid, and yet so overused it's becoming a real pain in the ass.

If you don't ban all guns, then yes, criminals can still get guns illegally because a supply chain for guns still exists. But if you ban all guns, then there's literally nowhere to get them. It's not that hard to understand.

#88 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:12 PM

If you don't ban all guns, then yes, criminals can still get guns illegally because a supply chain for guns still exists. But if you ban all guns, then there's literally nowhere to get them. It's not that hard to understand.

Last I knew, DMT is the most illegal drug there is, but people are still using it.

If a prisoner can make a deadly crossbow out of newspaper, someone like minded can make something worse than a gun.

Take "The Works" toilet cleaner, mix with tin foil, and you now have a bomb. While the explosion won't kill you(that's why you put nails in it for shrapnel) the combination of the cleaner and foil will burn your face off.

#89 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:24 PM

You guys are missing the point. You guys are arguing that because there are other ways to kill people out there, we should let guns stick around. Shouldn't we try to minimize the ways of killing people?

#90 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:33 PM

Last I knew, DMT is the most illegal drug there is, but people are still using it.

If a prisoner can make a deadly crossbow out of newspaper, someone like minded can make something worse than a gun.

Take "The Works" toilet cleaner, mix with tin foil, and you now have a bomb. While the explosion won't kill you(that's why you put nails in it for shrapnel) the combination of the cleaner and foil will burn your face off.

I've never even heard of DMT before you mentioned it, so I'm guessing not many people use it. What do you mean by "most illegal"? How many people actually use it in the US? Also, they probably import it from South America. Guns can't be imported from across the border, in fact, it's the other way around, the border gets guns from the US.

How many people in other countries with bans or restrictions on guns do you think have problems with tin foil bombs? Usually, if people can't get their hands on a gun, they won't attempt to kill people in a school with a bomb made of tin foil and toilet bowl cleaner. The idea of criminals actually using these things is ludicrous at best, and I'm fairly sure the bomb doesn't have the same lethal capacity as a gun, same goes for a crossbow made out of paper. If you can get me some stats on what percentage of people have actually died at the hands of toilet bowl cleaner or paper crossbows, I'm willing to be persuaded. Taking guns out of the equation saves lives, plain and simple, there's evidence for it in every country that has banned or severely restricted guns. The fact of the matter is that every country with strict gun laws or complete gun banning has lower homicide rates than any country with guns. But call it a worldwide Liberal conspiracy.

#91 xLEGACYx

xLEGACYx

    King of Kings

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Guarding Arkham Asylum
  • Interests:manipulating the minds of inmates

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:51 PM

I've never even heard of DMT before you mentioned it, so I'm guessing not many people use it. What do you mean by "most illegal"? How many people actually use it in the US? Also, they probably import it from South America. Guns can't be imported from across the border, in fact, it's the other way around, the border gets guns from the US.

How many people in other countries with bans or restrictions on guns do you think have problems with tin foil bombs? Usually, if people can't get their hands on a gun, they won't attempt to kill people in a school with a bomb made of tin foil and toilet bowl cleaner. The idea of criminals actually using these things is ludicrous at best, and I'm fairly sure the bomb doesn't have the same lethal capacity as a gun, same goes for a crossbow made out of paper. If you can get me some stats on what percentage of people have actually died at the hands of toilet bowl cleaner or paper crossbows, I'm willing to be persuaded. Taking guns out of the equation saves lives, plain and simple, there's evidence for it in every country that has banned or severely restricted guns. The fact of the matter is that every country with strict gun laws or complete gun banning has lower homicide rates than any country with guns. But call it a worldwide Liberal conspiracy.

again criminals arent gonna follow the laws and hand over guns. Banning guns would do nothing but take them away from those who would use them to protect themselves or their families. Police are a reactionary force. (I should know) They can only respond to situations that arise. Its people in the public that find themselves in these situations that should have the choice to have the ability to defend themselves. If you take away peoples right to defend themselves from an armed robber (by taking their guns), you have now taken away that persons right to defend themselves.

Everyone has the right to choose whether to own a gun or not. The right should not be taken away for one side and not the other. If you took away the right to not own a gun. It would be like issuing a gun to every person which is just as ridiculous. You should have the right to choose.


While not politically correct, many would find it hard to argue the point of...

http://www.facebook....461793830545348

#92 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:52 PM

You can make it out of the grass in your front lawn.

Explain Switzerland. In Mexico the only gun you can own has to be smaller than a .38. Yet those cartels have no problem getting AKs. You know a lot of the gun-death statistics come from the blood bath at the Mexican border.

You guys are missing the point. You guys are arguing that because there are other ways to kill people out there, we should let guns stick around. Shouldn't we try to minimize the ways of killing people?

And you think taking away guns=poof no deaths. You are missing the point as well. I don't think any citizen should own semi or fully automatic weapons. You are too liberal, Legacy is too conservative, I am somewhere in the middle.

I really do not think taking away guns will do anything at all. Other than make people get more creative.

#93 Nova Force Nova

Nova Force Nova

    Deadpan Snarker

  • CBUB Character Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A couch near you.
  • Interests:Interesting stuff.

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:58 PM

Nowhere that I can see has surfer suggested taking away guns magically equals no deaths. Getting rid of guns minimizes the options people have to kill is what he has been suggesting.

#94 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:59 PM

I have faith that most American people are too lazy to get creative enough to carry out another Newtown.

For Legacy, the Ted Nugent argument was dumb. He has the right to defend himself, yes. What's he defending himself from? ANOTHER GUN! So you take both guns out of the equation, the attacker might not attack Ted Nugent, he doesn't have to defend himself. Boom, problem solved.

Ted Nugent also seems a bit too bloodthirsty to aid your credibility. Most of what Ted Nugent had said also came from repeat offenders or people getting out of jail and committing more crimes. I have no problem with keeping people in jail forever. No problem at all.

#95 xLEGACYx

xLEGACYx

    King of Kings

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Guarding Arkham Asylum
  • Interests:manipulating the minds of inmates

Posted 20 December 2012 - 07:06 PM

the problem you all dont seem to realize is taking guns away by the government only hurts law abiding citizens. The criminals that have guns illegally are still gonna have them illegally. How dont you get that? If they ban guns, what are they gonna do about all the ones in peoples homes right now. They gonna round them all up? What about the people who have them illegally? They have no record of owning it. So now you have literally disarmed every law abiding citizen and left all the criminals armed.

On another note, I agree. There is no reason for a person to have automatic weapons. Only military and law enforcement should. Although it wont stop criminals from getting them or making them. Its easy to convert a semi auto rifle into an automatic.

A handgun and semi automatic make no difference though if the people are unarmed and have no way to defend themselves. A some pistols can hold 17 rounds. Thats 17 people. It takes 1 1/2 seconds approx. to change a clip. Then thats another 16 people. Its actually faster to use a handgun than a rifle for the untrained person.

#96 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 December 2012 - 07:20 PM

Criminals will still have guns, yes. Most criminals that will be dealing with these guns are gang members who will be turning these guns onto other gang members. Say that guns were banned and no one could legally have them in their house. Columbine would not have happened. Newtown would not have happened. Virginia Tech would not have happened. You keep claiming that people need guns so that they can defend themselves. Lock your fucking doors. Get an alarm system. I've heard plenty of stories involving robbers who don't have guns or people who defended their homes without guns.

Guns do no good in America anymore. We fought off an oppressive government 200 years ago. We can move on from that.

#97 xLEGACYx

xLEGACYx

    King of Kings

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Guarding Arkham Asylum
  • Interests:manipulating the minds of inmates

Posted 20 December 2012 - 07:24 PM

Criminals will still have guns, yes. Most criminals that will be dealing with these guns are gang members who will be turning these guns onto other gang members. Say that guns were banned and no one could legally have them in their house. Columbine would not have happened. Newtown would not have happened. Virginia Tech would not have happened. You keep claiming that people need guns so that they can defend themselves. Lock your *vulgarity*ing doors. Get an alarm system. I've heard plenty of stories involving robbers who don't have guns or people who defended their homes without guns.

Guns do no good in America anymore. We fought off an oppressive government 200 years ago. We can move on from that.

You say that and its good in theory but if someone was determined, they could get a gun just like they could drugs. If guns are illegal in america, it just ups the amount sold through drug trafficers. They now deal drugs and guns more than they did before.

take a look

http://www.justfacts...rol.asp#general

#98 Nova Force Nova

Nova Force Nova

    Deadpan Snarker

  • CBUB Character Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A couch near you.
  • Interests:Interesting stuff.

Posted 20 December 2012 - 07:53 PM

First off, drug traffickers for the most part do not sell guns. These guys aren't Harvard scholar geniuses.

#99 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:49 PM

again criminals arent gonna follow the laws and hand over guns. Banning guns would do nothing but take them away from those who would use them to protect themselves or their families. Police are a reactionary force. (I should know) They can only respond to situations that arise. Its people in the public that find themselves in these situations that should have the choice to have the ability to defend themselves. If you take away peoples right to defend themselves from an armed robber (by taking their guns), you have now taken away that persons right to defend themselves.

NO ONE USES GUNS FOR SELF DEFENSE. Only 0.2% of gun related homicides have anything to do with self defense and that INCLUDES cops shooting in self defense. Using that argument is like saying that the 99.8% of people dying is less important that the 0.2% you would save by giving them the capacity to use a firearm in self defense. I never said the problem would instantly dissipate, yes, people who have already bought guns would likely still have them, but they can't get new ones. Therefore, the market is destroyed and within a couple of years, gun violence will be eliminated, it's happened in every country that's banned or restricted gun ownership.

#100 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:55 PM

You can make it out of the grass in your front lawn.

Explain Switzerland. In Mexico the only gun you can own has to be smaller than a .38. Yet those cartels have no problem getting AKs. You know a lot of the gun-death statistics come from the blood bath at the Mexican border.


And you think taking away guns=poof no deaths. You are missing the point as well. I don't think any citizen should own semi or fully automatic weapons. You are too liberal, Legacy is too conservative, I am somewhere in the middle.

I really do not think taking away guns will do anything at all. Other than make people get more creative.

Make what out of the grass in your front lawn? What do you mean explain Switzerland? In Switzerland, every person is in the army, which is why they have guns. Too bad they don't have any ammo. It's kinda hard to shoot someone, when, you know, your gun doesn't shoot anything. All ammo is held by the government, the only place you can it is at firing ranges, but every round received at the range has to be spent at the range, insuring that no one has ammunition they can use.

Right, because Mexico enforces their gun laws oh so effectively. The cartels are more powerful than the government in Mexico City, what the hell do you expect would happen? It's a little known secret I'm about to tell you, but if the law isn't enforced, it typically doesn't do much. Besides, even if the law was enforced (it's not) a .38 is still a pretty large caliber, it's bigger in diameter than the round the AK-47 fires.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users