Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Guns don't kill people. People kill people


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#16 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,569 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:21 AM

Gun control bill about to go to a vote...

What part of the bill would have prevented Newtown from occurring?

Don't worry. They're digging up charts and graphs to dispute your logic. Just taking a little while this time.

#17 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:27 AM

the owner of the gun should be shot



Fixed. And make is public.

Not before I invest in gun lock and safe companies though.

#18 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 20,521 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:35 AM

Don't worry. They're digging up charts and graphs to dispute your logic. Just taking a little while this time.


i don't trust them there liberal internet charts either

#19 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,569 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:48 AM

i don't trust them there liberal internet charts either

just saying that his post sat there all day with no reply. While I drop a joke off and get a response in seconds. He has a legitimate question that I thought the brainiacs around here would have an immediate answer for. Or maybe they don't have an answer! Thanks, for clearing that up for me.

#20 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 20,521 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:59 AM

just saying that his post sat there all day with no reply. While I drop a joke off and get a response in seconds. He has a legitimate question that I thought the brainiacs around here would have an immediate answer for. Or maybe they don't have an answer! Thanks, for clearing that up for me.


i don't personally have an answer, but i'm not speaking for everyone. someone else may.

why does their have to be a clear-cut answer for someone to raise inquiry?

#21 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,569 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 11 April 2013 - 12:09 PM

The Parent's should be in trouble for this one, but the outcry is funny.

Let's be real here and everyone needs to accept the fact that Guns are deadly machines made and designed to take lives. Guns are made by people to kill other people, that's what they are made for, it's the intended use of the machine.

They weren't made or designed for self protection or hunting. They were made to kill and are meant to take lives. If you look at the everything from the Chinese lance to the hand cannons to the first musket's, all designed with war and death in mind.


My question is why do people who are for owning guns (death machines in design and implementation) get appalled and surprised when the gun does it's job? Either be for guns and accept the fact that they are meant to take lives or be against them.

In your hands and thru your perspective they may only be for killing. But in my hands and thru my perspective they are for defending. And though they may have a hard time vocallizing this position, I garuntee you that most advocates against gun control feel the same way. It's idealism. Sorry yours carries you straight to death and destruction.

#22 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • ALL-PRO
  • 11,516 posts
  • LocationConcord, NC

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:12 PM

In your hands and thru your perspective they may only be for killing. But in my hands and thru my perspective they are for defending. And though they may have a hard time vocallizing this position, I garuntee you that most advocates against gun control feel the same way. It's idealism. Sorry yours carries you straight to death and destruction.



I don't own a gun, nor will I ever own one. I don't have a problem with people owning them though. I was stating facts, not my opinion or anything. LMAO

Guns were made originally to kill, not for self defense. They were made for wars, nothing more..nothing less. They were designed to kill and that's the machines intended purpose and why they were invented.

I posted history of the history of guns as well. Everything from the Chinese fire lance to hand cannons and Muskets were designed for battles fought between men. If they were designed and invented for war, then the intended purposed of the invention is to kill not self defense.

#23 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,569 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:23 AM

I don't own a gun, nor will I ever own one. I don't have a problem with people owning them though. I was stating facts, not my opinion or anything. LMAO

Guns were made originally to kill, not for self defense. They were made for wars, nothing more..nothing less. They were designed to kill and that's the machines intended purpose and why they were invented.

I posted history of the history of guns as well. Everything from the Chinese fire lance to hand cannons and Muskets were designed for battles fought between men. If they were designed and invented for war, then the intended purposed of the invention is to kill not self defense.

wow. umm, when these wars are being fought and the people that are having war thrust upon them, would they not be defending themselves? You say thier made for killing I say, thier for protection. If you were correct then how do you explain police. Do thier guns not protect. And surely you have to know that armed citizens keep crime levels lower than without, right? Not because they"re out there bullying criminals with thier guns. Reasoning for crooks to target people they assess as defenseless. Guns kill when they are in the wrong hands, yes. But thats why we have laws. For criminals who kill. Not innocent who defend. Thats what you are taking from them. Its not guns, its the RIGHT to defend.

#24 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • ALL-PRO
  • 11,516 posts
  • LocationConcord, NC

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:38 PM

wow. umm, when these wars are being fought and the people that are having war thrust upon them, would they not be defending themselves? You say thier made for killing I say, thier for protection. If you were correct then how do you explain police. Do thier guns not protect. And surely you have to know that armed citizens keep crime levels lower than without, right? Not because they"re out there bullying criminals with thier guns. Reasoning for crooks to target people they assess as defenseless. Guns kill when they are in the wrong hands, yes. But thats why we have laws. For criminals who kill. Not innocent who defend. Thats what you are taking from them. Its not guns, its the RIGHT to defend.



Wow.... did you read anything.... The Chinese invented a weapon to improve their chances of winning battles. They were already fighting wars with swords and bows and weren't using fire lances for self defense.

Same goes for the Hand Cannon and then the Muskets. They were all developed for military purposes, not civilians. They weren't made for self defense, the hand Cannon wasn't accurate at all. The Musket was so slow before loaders and prepared cartridges were made, that a bow and arrow was far more effective and accurate. The intention of these weapons was to improve the force of impact and make damaging and killing blows more likely to occur on the battlefield.

None of these were for self defense. lol

I didn't say that the current use of guns was for just war and death, I said the intended and original use of guns were for war and death, therefore making them killing machines in intention.

Police aren't completely civilians either, their job is to protect the city they serve in. It's part of their job description. Yet you still see police that discriminate and kill with their weapons, so even that's a double bladed sword.


Let's look at how most countries view guns and other types of fire arms.


How about gun laws for other countries, lets see if they allow self defense.

Guns in the UK aren't allowed to be used by civilians even in self defense on another human if it results in death. There's little provision in the country for justifiable homicide and most types of guns aren't allowed for ownership.No handguns, automatic weapons or anything militia in nature.

Most European countries have similar laws as well.

Switzerland being the exception to that rule. However the reason it has such a low crime rate is because men between 20-30 are conscripted into the military and undergo weapon training and are obligated to own a military issued rifle.

Most other countries in the world ban guns for use by civilians as well.




The only country that really allows it's citizens free range of purchase of weapons is the US, where civilians are allowed to purchase automatic weapons and hand guns. It also has one of the highest crime rates and murder per rates if you include 1st world countries.


The invention and advancement of guns is based on military's needs, not for civilian's and self defense. To think that fire arms were invented for self protection is silly. If that was the case there wouldn't be any automatic weapons or explosive devices or anything really past the single shot weapon.

#25 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,851 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:39 PM

I wish some of you could understand how hard it is to be pro-gun rights and have to make arguments in favor of guns while contending with posters like Harris Aballah and others that all go "DERPA DERP COLD DEAD HANDDDSSSS!!!"

This incident is a tragedy, but no amount of legislation could have prevented it nor will it change it after the fact.

There are terrible gun owners out there. They don't know what responsibility is and, most likely, neither will their children.

It is a sad example of our culture when the kids are outside playing "shoot 'em," and I'm sure we all did some of it as kids.

We desensitize violence. We don't know what responsibility is.

I'm at a point where I can agree to a fair compromise. I really don't want databases (even though I'm sure they already exist.) I don't want an insurance system. I don't think any restriction on weapon "style" has any real justification. Sure, make it terribly difficult to own fully automatics (already is most places). Make extended clips some sort of permitted type thing. Extend background checks and hold the institutions responsible for them at a higher standard. As for anything else, I'm open to discussion.

#26 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:59 PM

Gun control bill about to go to a vote...

What part of the bill would have prevented Newtown from occurring?


Dunno, what we do know is the Second Amendment, ready access to guns, etc... didn't stop it from occurring.

#27 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,569 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:38 AM

I wish some of you could understand how hard it is to be pro-gun rights and have to make arguments in favor of guns while contending with posters like Harris Aballah and others that all go "DERPA DERP COLD DEAD HANDDDSSSS!!!"

This incident is a tragedy, but no amount of legislation could have prevented it nor will it change it after the fact.

There are terrible gun owners out there. They don't know what responsibility is and, most likely, neither will their children.

It is a sad example of our culture when the kids are outside playing "shoot 'em," and I'm sure we all did some of it as kids.

We desensitize violence. We don't know what responsibility is.

I'm at a point where I can agree to a fair compromise. I really don't want databases (even though I'm sure they already exist.) I don't want an insurance system. I don't think any restriction on weapon "style" has any real justification. Sure, make it terribly difficult to own fully automatics (already is most places). Make extended clips some sort of permitted type thing. Extend background checks and hold the institutions responsible for them at a higher standard. As for anything else, I'm open to discussion.

I don't recall saying anything about cold dead hands. my arguement is that theres enough laws on the books already. And that guns are not for killing. They are for defending. Background checks for illegally obtained firearms will never happen (because they are obtained illegally). Thieves do not have background checks in the act of thier crime. So yes, I am a little concerned at who these new laws are for?

#28 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,851 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:49 AM

It was more a reference of your arguing points basically towing the lines of the NRA...

my arguement is that theres enough laws on the books already.


I can kinda agree there, but the problem is that what you're talking about are likely state/local laws that may not apply to the entire country.

And that guns are not for killing. They are for defending.


This is a half-full/half-empty argument. It is pretty much a question of intent, and intent is based on those whom guns are in the hands of.

Background checks for illegally obtained firearms will never happen (because they are obtained illegally).


This is obvious.

But, the argument that some are trying to make is that if you reduce the possibility of a gun floating into the illegal market by making them more difficult to obtain legally, then you have reduced the chance at gun violence. Basically, they are hoping that tighter restrictions on legal guns equates to less legal guns. Less legal guns equates to decreased probability that said legal guns would be used illegally. It makes sense on paper, but that doesn't necessarily mean it works.

Thieves do not have background checks in the act of thier crime. So yes, I am a little concerned at who these new laws are for?


See above.

I'm open to discussion about what we can do to take guns out of the hands of bad guys. I'm not open to taking guns out of the hands of responsible gun owners.

#29 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 08:02 AM

Lastest fad graph...

Posted Image

#30 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,851 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 08:11 AM

Lastest fad graph...

Posted Image



lol...

Chicago has nearly 12,000 people per square mile.

Houston has less than 4,000


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com