Gun control

YIMMY_sl · Dec 22, 2012

Sebudai_sl said:
Just through this together so there's some actual context and numbers for us to argue about.

Seems like we need be more on Sweden's path.

Lithose · Dec 22, 2012

YIMMY_sl said:
Seems like we need be more on Sweden's path.

Low poverty, pro-labor, highly educated society that also has a heavily slanted "treatment" set of drug laws (Even if it's still no tolerance)? Yep, would probably eliminate a bulk of the homicides in the U.S.

Just like with abortion, the best way to reduce homicides is reduce the impetus to commit them. Take away the desperation poverty causes, and reduce the profit motivation our absurd drug laws cause and then educate people to increase their fold in civic society (Which mandatory enlistment like in Sweden helps) and you have a population that is responsible enough to have weapons in their homes and almost never use them.

Hell, look at Switzerland, too. Same thing. As far I know they are far more pro-treatement--from Wikipedia they even allow monitored heroin therapy for addicts. And voila, 50% gun ownership, and an even lower homicide rate than Sweden even.

BrutulTM · Dec 22, 2012

Azrayne_sl said:
Violent crime, sure, but you're missing the point. The point is that when people do flip out, they do it with a knife or a baseball bat or their fists instead of a weapon which can kill a roomful of people in seconds. The point of gun control isn't to reduce to incidents, it's to reduce fatalities.

The stats I'm talking about are for MURDER. Murder = Fatality. Assault weapons cause like .5% of firearm fatalities. Banning them will do next to nothing.

Excidium · Dec 22, 2012

BrutulTM_sl said:
A fair percentage. But who cares really? Murder is murder.

You try killing more than one person with a knife. That's the difference. You can't do a drive by knifing either. The targeted gang assassinations have been causing bystanders to be hit with stray fire.

By controlling guns that can inflict tons of damage, law officers can seize banned weapons from gang members who don't have restraining orders for firearm possession. They put so many gan gbangers in jail for possession of illegal weapons.

Excidium · Dec 22, 2012

BrutulTM_sl said:
A fair percentage. But who cares really? Murder is murder.

You try killing more than one person with a knife. Thats the difference. You can't do a drive by knifing either. The targeted gang assassinations have been causing bystanders to be hit with stray fire.

By controlling guns that can inflict tons of damage, law officers can seize banned weapons from gang members who don't have restraining orders for firearm possession. They put so many gangbangers in jail for possession of illegal weapons.

I know the knife is Canada's weapon of choice in murders, next is I think is beatings/choking. I know killing somebody while intoxicated is felony murder in Canada but I don't know that is something in murder statistics.

And the whole protecting your house with a gun because you don't want intruders is so ass backwards. Go look at the statistics on random break in enter resulting in rape or murder. I always bring up stats for this shit because more often people are scared for the things that cause death in a glory, terrifying way. You don't seem outraged at all the vehicle deaths, or you might even smoke tobacco. You could do extreme sports like back country snowmobiling and skiing, both killing more people in British Columbia than all murders every year. But those are fun.

Salshun_sl · Dec 22, 2012

Buddy posted this: Saying I believe in gun control doesn't mean I'm anti-gun. That would be like saying because I'm into street lights I'm anti-car.

Excidium · Dec 22, 2012

Blakkheim_sl said:
The purpose of sueing the hell out of these schools is not to "get me some money". It's to get these schools to change how secure their schools and protect the children that they are responsible for. If you would wake the fuck up and notice, that's the entire problem we are trying to deal with. This is the real issue.
This was absolutely a situation that could have been prevented, or at the very least significantly mitigated, with proper security and protection from the school. This means having someone on the premise that is trained and armed with the capability to stop some fucker like this. If you are going to try and argue that it is not the school's responsibility to secure the school itself, then who's fucking responsibility is it? Are the students just responsible for their own safety?
Everyone wants to act like this is some impossible task to achieve. The town I live in has had a quite a few bank robberies in the last several years. Up until recently I had hardly ever seen any guards at my local bank but I sure do now. These banks with about 10 to 12 employees somehow managed to hire a damn armed guard yet a school with 300-400 students and 50-60 staff members can't I guess.

You don't sue the poor school or school district, you go to the government to enact laws to get stuff done. Its how the rest of the world works. I see so many republican nuts call for spending cuts, so why would you want a public entity that is paid by tax payer to be out a couple hundred million dollars? That money is best spent actually fixing the god damn problem.

earthfell · Dec 22, 2012

A study was released in California that estimated the costs of the NRA's plan. $1 billion dollars a year.

Sebudai · Dec 22, 2012

1 billion a year to "protect" what are essentially the safest places in the country. Good plan, Wayne.

B_Mizzle · Dec 22, 2012

Sebudai_sl said:
Things that will actually reduce gun violence:

Reduce the number of guns (especially handguns).

End drug prohibition.

End drug prohibition? Really? Maybe while we're at it we'll allow crack heads to use their EBT cards to buy drugs. Sounds like a great idea.

I will support ending ban on marijuana though, not narcotics. But it's really a moot point because it's not going to happen, and we have liberals to thank for it. Ever hear of the prison industrial complex? And the massive public sector unions that man those prisons? What happens if they change laws so that many of the prisoners get released? Yeah all the sudden a whole bunch of union/union workers are SOL. You really think those unions will allow that to happen? What about the federal unions that are involved? Like the DEA? There is so much liberal money against legalizing drugs it's sickening. So liberals can thanks themselves.

iannis · Dec 22, 2012

I fail to see what taking a suit against the school system would accomplish besides for raising the property taxes of all those people already paying for that school.

I assume that the ones who had children killed will probably be moving away from that neighborhood/town at some point. But I just assume that because given a similar situation I wouldn't want to stay there longer than I was forced to through circumstance.

So you're talking about a survivors tax?

Sebudai · Dec 22, 2012

B_Mizzle_sl said:
End drug prohibition? Really? Maybe while we're at it we'll allow crack heads to use their EBT cards to buy drugs. Sounds like a great idea.

I will support ending ban on marijuana though, not narcotics. But it's really a moot point because it's not going to happen, and we have liberals to thank for it. Ever hear of the prison industrial complex? And the massive public sector unions that man those prisons? What happens if they change laws so that many of the prisoners get released? Yeah all the sudden a whole bunch of union/union workers are SOL. You really think those unions will allow that to happen? What about the federal unions that are involved? Like the DEA? There is so much liberal money against legalizing drugs it's sickening. So liberals can thanks themselves.

Bro, I read this forum frequently, and it's quite obvious that you've become increasingly over the top on purpose. Reel your shit back in to something more believable if you want me to play along.

Araysar · Dec 22, 2012

Sebudai_sl said:
Bro, I read this forum frequently, and it's quite obvious that you've become increasingly over the top on purpose. Reel your shit back in to something more believable if you want me to play along.

Seriously. This trolling reeks of desperation for attention.

Sebudai · Dec 22, 2012

The war on drugs was started by Nixon, by the way. Anyone remember what his political party was? Also, the next president after Nixon to make it a major priority was Reagan. I forget, was he a liberal?

B_Mizzle · Dec 22, 2012

Sebudai_sl said:
Bro, I read this forum frequently, and it's quite obvious that you've become increasingly over the top on purpose. Reel your shit back in to something more believable if you want me to play along.

Who wants you to respond? What you said is stupid on level beyond most liberals, "yeah lets just end drug prohibition". I just pointed out a few of the many reasons why that will never happen.

Sebudai · Dec 22, 2012

I didn't say it should be done. I said it would reduce gun violence. Are you bad at reading?

Excidium · Dec 22, 2012

B_Mizzle_sl said:
End drug prohibition? Really? Maybe while we're at it we'll allow crack heads to use their EBT cards to buy drugs. Sounds like a great idea.

I will support ending ban on marijuana though, not narcotics. But it's really a moot point because it's not going to happen, and we have liberals to thank for it. Ever hear of the prison industrial complex? And the massive public sector unions that man those prisons? What happens if they change laws so that many of the prisoners get released? Yeah all the sudden a whole bunch of union/union workers are SOL. You really think those unions will allow that to happen? What about the federal unions that are involved? Like the DEA? There is so much liberal money against legalizing drugs it's sickening. So liberals can thanks themselves.

What is your stance on the non illicit drugs that don't cause crime and disease? I smoke pot and its a narcotic. I use it because it is a narcotic. Narcotics somehow got tagged in with all illicit drugs, which is incorrect. When the USA banned drugs like LSD, MDMA and its derivatives, mushrooms ect, guess what happened? They proliferated.

And right now prescription drug abuse is rampant in the US. You can ask your doctor for drugs for whatever bullshit reason so you get medically accepted drugs that rival any street drug out there. They normally cost more, the price of pills are sublimated by tax payers money already so its happening now. But it must be okay because they are legal.

Big Phoenix · Dec 22, 2012

Excidium_sl said:
You try killing more than one person with a knife. Thats the difference. You can't do a drive by knifing either. The targeted gang assassinations have been causing bystanders to be hit with stray fire.

By controlling guns that can inflict tons of damage, law officers can seize banned weapons from gang members who don't have restraining orders for firearm possession. They put so many gangbangers in jail for possession of illegal weapons.

I know the knife is Canada's weapon of choice in murders, next is I think is beatings/choking. I know killing somebody while intoxicated is felony murder in Canada but I don't know that is something in murder statistics.

And the whole protecting your house with a gun because you don't want intruders is so ass backwards. Go look at the statistics on random break in enter resulting in rape or murder. I always bring up stats for this shit because more often people are scared for the things that cause death in a glory, terrifying way. You don't seem outraged at all the vehicle deaths, or you might even smoke tobacco. You could do extreme sports like back country snowmobiling and skiing, both killing more people in British Columbia than all murders every year. But those are fun.

Jesus youre one giant contradiction.

Jx3 · Dec 22, 2012

Gun control would be easy if you could also teach responsibility.

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.

Im no lawyer but just going by this what stops the government from taking all guns? According to this they could say were allowed nunchuks and it would still be allowing us to bear arms.

Juvarisx · Dec 22, 2012

Clearly since the founding fathers didn't specify what arms were allowed should just have all of them available. If I want a M240 then fuck you I guess cause who need common sense when it comes to the issue.

Gun control

shitlord

Buzzfeed Editor

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.

Trakanon Raider

Trakanon Raider

shitlord

Trakanon Raider

Golden Knight of the Realm

Ssraeszha Raider

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Musty Nester

Ssraeszha Raider

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Ssraeszha Raider

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Ssraeszha Raider

Trakanon Raider

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Riddle me this...

Florida