Post: #26

Judging by some of the sentiment in this thread, I'm thinking Britain sent Piers Morgan to American television because they couldn't stand to see him on their screens any longer.

Post: #27

Where are the anti gun guys?

Post: #28

(12-20-2012 02:00 PM)houston Wrote:  Where are the anti gun guys?

Houston's looking for an opponent for his RVF boxing match...

Post: #29

Why don't you americans bring up the fact that every mass shooter seems to be on some sort of big pharma drug ? I know the media always hides those facts, but it always comes out. Why is that arguement never hammered home again and again ? I bet you could go back over the last 30 years or so when all the mind altering prescriptions started coming out and find that almost all of the mass shooters were on prozac, paxil or whatever drug they pump into everyone now ?

Post: #30

(12-20-2012 02:45 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  Why don't you americans bring up the fact that every mass shooter seems to be on some sort of big pharma drug ? I know the media always hides those facts, but it always comes out. Why is that arguement never hammered home again and again ? I bet you could go back over the last 30 years or so when all the mind altering prescriptions started coming out and find that almost all of the mass shooters were on prozac, paxil or whatever drug they pump into everyone now ?

Those of us in the pro-gun crowd have been wondering this for days. The national media and the politicians are calling for a national discussion about gun control, but couldn't be bothered to chair a national discussion on psychopaths raised by shitty parents (frequently single mothers).

Post: #31

Well the CPS already does a great job of destroying innocent peoples lives so I would hate to get the government involved anymore on raising families. But why aren't the side effects of these drugs magnified more ? I feel like if teachers were allowed to pack heat and we kept children off anti depression and anti psychotic drugs you would never have any succesful mass murders in the US.

On a side note I was just reading an article on infowars.com and I was surprised to know that finland has had a few mass shootings in the last few years.

Post: #32

here is the link.

The video at the end is absolutely dumbfounding. Michael Moore knows the answer to mass shootings yet he advocates banning guns.


http://www.infowars.com/fanapt-hoax-hide...sri-drugs/

Post: #33

I'm a liberal. I don't own a gun, and never plan to. But I get that meaningful gun control is impossible in this country.

And in fact, if someone were coming at me, I would almost rather have them have a fully automatic weapon. Spray bullets everywhere, look cool for two seconds, miss, and then painstakingly reload while I run like hell. A guy coming at me with a semiautomatic squeezing off single shots and actually aiming the fucking thing seems much more lethal.

Further, I would find a guy with a shoulder-fired deer rifle and a scope coming for me much scarier than a guy with an iron-sights Bushmaster AR-15 with shrouded barrel and pistol grip and whateverthefuck else tacticLOL shit some geek wants so he can look like the Matrix. I know the first guy is going to hit, and the bullet's going to go into whatever specific organ of mine he wants to shred. And of course, you can't ban deer rifles.

So I agree with my pro-gun bros that gun control is not a viable solution. And antidepressant control may be. Those pills fuck you up, like any other drug. There is no such thing as a free lunch. They can cripple you while you're on them, and they will give you a prolonged crash when you get off. There is no such thing as a free lunch in the world of drugs.

Post: #34

That is your way of protecting yourself ? Hope he is a bad shot and then run ? I would think liberals have a better strategy than that ? Maybe playing dead would work better or hiding behind a lamp post

Post: #35

(12-20-2012 03:25 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  That is your way of protecting yourself ? Hope he is a bad shot and then run ? I would think liberals have a better strategy than that ? Maybe playing dead would work better or hiding behind a lamp post

Assuming there were no elderly people to throw in front of myself as human shields, yes.

Post: #36

Morgan got way too emotional, and didn't need to because he had the better arguments. Pratt was making shit up, saying Australia, Germany and the UK have more violent crimes than the US does.

Morgan needs to realize that people whose career is centered on spouting a bunch of bullshit have the strongest frames, and won't allow themselves to get flustered.

Post: #37

All this macho talk about guns is complete bullshit. Any pussy - like the CT shooter - can pull a trigger and kill people. That doesn't make you a man. Square up with a guy if you want to feel like a man. Take up MMA or boxing. Personally, I think gun violence is the US is outrageous. The argument that guns protect people is also weak. The vast majority of gun owners don't have the proper training to respond effectively to a situation when a criminal begins shooting. In fact, that shooting in Arizona (Congresswoman) highlighted that very well. Many people around at the time had firearms on them but didn't even know where the shots were coming from and were ready to shoot the "wrong person." Also, gun ownership hasn't deterred people from committing violent crime (clearly).

The way to reduce homicides is to ban handguns and assault rifles completely. Make them illegal full stop. That's worked in every country where that's happened. Men lie, women lie, numbers don't. Hunting rifles are fine so long as you make it expensive, ensure proper documentation, and regulate it strictly.

Post: #38

(12-21-2012 06:42 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  All this macho talk about guns is complete bullshit. Any pussy - like the CT shooter - can pull a trigger and kill people. That doesn't make you a man. Square up with a guy if you want to feel like a man. Take up MMA or boxing.

Riiiiight. Owning a gun is macho bullshit. But going toe to toe with an attacker who is armed with a bat, knife or gun is not.

Do you suggest that I enroll my mother in muay thai? When you are 70yrs old, do you plan to be Mr. Miyagi?

(12-21-2012 06:42 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Personally, I think gun violence is the US is outrageous. The argument that guns protect people is also weak. The vast majority of gun owners don't have the proper training to respond effectively to a situation when a criminal begins shooting. In fact, that shooting in Arizona (Congresswoman) highlighted that very well. Many people around at the time had firearms on them but didn't even know where the shots were coming from and were ready to shoot the "wrong person."

There have been instances of gun owners stopping shooting/knifing sprees in progress. These never make the national news.

(12-21-2012 06:42 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Also, gun ownership hasn't deterred people from committing violent crime (clearly).

1. See Pratt's point about crime rate where concealed carry is readily available vs where it is not.

2. Banning guns has not deterred people from committing violent crime - the UK's violent crime rate is 4x that of the US (and even greater if you exclude the parts of the US with the strictest gun control).

(12-21-2012 06:42 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  The way to reduce homicides is to ban handguns and assault rifles completely. Make them illegal full stop. That's worked in every country where that's happened.

That has worked marvelously in turning law abiding citizens into victims of those who care not for laws against assault, rape, murder, and least of all, laws against gun possession.

Post: #39

The Gun Is Civilization” By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

Post: #40

Look I'm sure theres other factors at play but let me say this. In the 26 years in LA Ive only had my back pack stolen back in 9th grade and that was because I didn't take reasonable precautions.

In 3 years in london ive had my flat broken into, 3 delivery packages in 3 seperate flats stolen and nearly got into 4 fights My roommate from san fran who never had his shit stolen, this year, has had, in addition to the flat broken into, his iphone stolen from his pocket and his bike stolen by some fucker using a hack saw through the wooden fence.

I'm willing to bet you if there was the possibilty of being shot, you'd see less of this shit.

Post: #41

Gun control is a pretty stupid idea. It just restricts law abiding citizens from getting guns. Criminals won't give a fuck about the law and they will get them anyways.

I live in Puerto Rico. Here citizens can't go and buy guns. You have to get a permit to have a gun at home or the shooting range (which is pretty hard to get) and another permit if you want to carry your gun (which is even HARDER to get).

You can research. I think we have about 1,000+ murders per year. In an island which is about 100mi x 35mi and a population of about 4,000,000 .

Sometimes innocent people get killed, but most of them have something to do with the drug world. Anyways, most of these murders are done with guns. Irony, where you have so many restrictions to buy guns you have the most violent murders. It's supid to think that laws will stop people who work outside of them (criminals).

Those stupid laws only hurt the ones they want to "protect". Like those laws similar to the patriot act.

Post: #42

(12-21-2012 04:30 PM)cibo Wrote:  Look I'm sure theres other factors at play but let me say this. In the 26 years in LA Ive only had my back pack stolen back in 9th grade and that was because I didn't take reasonable precautions.

In 3 years in london ive had my flat broken into, 3 delivery packages in 3 seperate flats stolen and nearly got into 4 fights My roommate from san fran who never had his shit stolen, this year, has had, in addition to the flat broken into, his iphone stolen from his pocket and his bike stolen by some fucker using a hack saw through the wooden fence.

I'm willing to bet you if there was the possibilty of being shot, you'd see less of this shit.

Ok then. But when was the last time 20 kids were shot to death in a school in the UK?

Post: #43

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting and self defense from common criminals and EVERYTHING to do with protecting ourselves from a tyranical and oppresive government!!!

Those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.Before every government sponsored genocide their has ALWAYS been a push to DISARM the people.

Post: #44

"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition and the will to use it, Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic." (Aaron Zelman)

Post: #45

(12-21-2012 05:30 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  "If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition and the will to use it, Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic." (Aaron Zelman)

EXACTLY!!!

Post: #46

(12-21-2012 04:52 PM)Nudge Wrote:  Ok then. But when was the last time 20 kids were shot to death in a school in the UK?

So the lack of gun violence in the UK makes all the other crimes more acceptable?

If a bully attacks someone out of boredom and leaves them with a broken jaw, missing teeth, fractured orbital, etc, it's OK because the bully didn't murder his victim with a gun? What if that victim gets to deal with a lifetime of chronic pain as a lingering effect of their injuries? Who cares? Right?

We can cherry pick statistics to trade back and forth but the fact remains, overall crime in Europe has been increasing in recent years, while throughout the US, with a few exceptional shit holes, overall crime has been trending downward since the mid 90s.

Post: #47

(12-21-2012 06:42 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  All this macho talk about guns is complete bullshit. Any pussy - like the CT shooter - can pull a trigger and kill people. That doesn't make you a man. Square up with a guy if you want to feel like a man. Take up MMA or boxing. Personally, I think gun violence is the US is outrageous. The argument that guns protect people is also weak. The vast majority of gun owners don't have the proper training to respond effectively to a situation when a criminal begins shooting. In fact, that shooting in Arizona (Congresswoman) highlighted that very well. Many people around at the time had firearms on them but didn't even know where the shots were coming from and were ready to shoot the "wrong person." Also, gun ownership hasn't deterred people from committing violent crime (clearly).

The way to reduce homicides is to ban handguns and assault rifles completely. Make them illegal full stop. That's worked in every country where that's happened. Men lie, women lie, numbers don't. Hunting rifles are fine so long as you make it expensive, ensure proper documentation, and regulate it strictly.

(12-21-2012 04:52 PM)Nudge Wrote:  

(12-21-2012 04:30 PM)cibo Wrote:  Look I'm sure theres other factors at play but let me say this. In the 26 years in LA Ive only had my back pack stolen back in 9th grade and that was because I didn't take reasonable precautions.

In 3 years in london ive had my flat broken into, 3 delivery packages in 3 seperate flats stolen and nearly got into 4 fights My roommate from san fran who never had his shit stolen, this year, has had, in addition to the flat broken into, his iphone stolen from his pocket and his bike stolen by some fucker using a hack saw through the wooden fence.

I'm willing to bet you if there was the possibilty of being shot, you'd see less of this shit.

Ok then. But when was the last time 20 kids were shot to death in a school in the UK?

(12-16-2012 11:40 PM)basilransom Wrote:  I found a blog post from a girl making the same points you and I made: thedailyspork.com/2012/12/16/on-a-serious-note/

But otherwise, this dimension has been studiously ignored by the media. Of course, if the media acknowledged that the guns were stored improperly, that would detract from their argument for more gun control. Speaking from personal experience, almost anyone who is pro gun control and does not own a gun is a damn retard when it comes to discussing guns - they're so emotionally repulsed by them that they can't discuss them maturely; all they can muster is 'get rid of them!' This would be like a bitter cyclist seeing a senile old guy run people over, and then declaring that private car ownership should be abandoned.

They're only harming themselves - if they put some of their energy into making gun ownership more secure, instead of just opposing guns completely, they might be more effective in reducing disasters like these. Instead, when the gun opponents lose, they lose influence over how guns are used.

Post: #48

(12-21-2012 04:52 PM)Nudge Wrote:  

(12-21-2012 04:30 PM)cibo Wrote:  Look I'm sure theres other factors at play but let me say this. In the 26 years in LA Ive only had my back pack stolen back in 9th grade and that was because I didn't take reasonable precautions.

In 3 years in london ive had my flat broken into, 3 delivery packages in 3 seperate flats stolen and nearly got into 4 fights My roommate from san fran who never had his shit stolen, this year, has had, in addition to the flat broken into, his iphone stolen from his pocket and his bike stolen by some fucker using a hack saw through the wooden fence.

I'm willing to bet you if there was the possibilty of being shot, you'd see less of this shit.

Ok then. But when was the last time 20 kids were shot to death in a school in the UK?

You do have people getting stabbed by knives all the time.

And you seem to forget that in the London riots everyone was powerless to stop the mob which destroyed many people's livelihoods and just mugged random people. Unlike in the LA riots with guns to stop people as shown by the Koreans amongst others, everyone just got their shit broke with the London riots. My area was hit by rioters and I'm in central London which is the good part of town. No one did fuck all until the police actually got off their asses and went into riot lock-down mode.

This doesn't even get into the whole IRA thing either or the 2007 subway bombings both of which might hit your 20 people death count. Maybe the UK doesn't get as extreme killings but its has at least as much violent crime as the US if not more.

Post: #49

I visit these gun threads when I want to have a good laugh. Indeed, the idea that people would massively " create their own guns " if there were no guns on sale in the stores, or that knifes are as deadly as a rifle in a mass shooting is simply...HILARIOUS!

There is a lot of rationalizing masturbation by the NRA folks. Stubborn people who rarely or never travel, see themselves as the center of the world and feel threatened by anything except weaponed human beings.

The sad thing is they are responsible for keeping an endless cycle of mass shootings going. As if they were afraid that the number of shootings would reduce if effective gun laws end with this absurd situation.

Post: #50

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...a-U-S.html

I stick by the statement that there's less extreme mass killing in the UK but there is more violent crime. I'm not saying we can absolutely prove that the higher crime rate is due to gun differences but you can't say the lack of guns makes a country more safe if we define crime beyond murders.