quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I couldn't agree more. And to bama, there was plenty of time between the shooting and when he was shot that he could have easily shot numerous other individuals, and it wasn't at that point that he had met armed resistance. If you even bothered to watch the video footage, he didn't really meet much armed opposition until he entered the parliament building. What he had was essentially a hunting rifle, not exactly a mass killing weapon the same way many other weapons in the states are. If he had a weapon that could he could spray and pray, or one with a bigger magazine, then yeah, more people would be dead. And if the Long Gun registry was still in effect, it would be easy to assume that he wouldn't have been able to get ahold of such a weapon in the first place.

I'm not sugar coating this because the statistics back it up 110% when you compare the number of shootings and their severity in Canada vs the USA. If Canada had the same gun restrictions as the USA, more people would have died, pure and simple. The fact that this guy had a gun which is now easier to attain is pretty good proof of that. If you make it easier for murderers and criminals to get guns, they will use them.

You are wrong, because you get bad info. Hunting rifles are much more lethal than ARs. The .223 which is what it shoots isn't even legal for hunting anything bigger than groundhog because it lacks power. Shooting faster is only helpful for pinning people down, other than that it just wastes ammo. One round from a 30-30 will bring down a person, you are far more likely to need a second or third round from a .223 to do this.

Fuck man, I dont know what the fuck you're talking about, we're not talking about how powerful a gun is, and in this case IT DOESNT MATTER. It takes a pound of pressure to puncture flesh, and it's not like everyone is wearing a bullet proof vest like in the USA. Every gun on the planet will impact with more strength than a pound, from almost any distance. How many american killing sprees were done with a hunting rifle where the guy wasn't an expert sniper or marksman? In Cirillo's case, where the guy wasn't an expert shooter, then the gun of choice wouldn't ideally be a hunting rifle. He used a hunting rifle because it was easier to get, simple as that. If you swung a gun from left to right which can fire off 100 rounds in 20 seconds, you'll have a better chance of getting maximum casualties than if you shot the same way with a hunting rifle. Efficiency man, cmon, I know you're thick but you can't be this thick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I couldn't agree more. And to bama, there was plenty of time between the shooting and when he was shot that he could have easily shot numerous other individuals, and it wasn't at that point that he had met armed resistance. If you even bothered to watch the video footage, he didn't really meet much armed opposition until he entered the parliament building. What he had was essentially a hunting rifle, not exactly a mass killing weapon the same way many other weapons in the states are. If he had a weapon that could he could spray and pray, or one with a bigger magazine, then yeah, more people would be dead. And if the Long Gun registry was still in effect, it would be easy to assume that he wouldn't have been able to get ahold of such a weapon in the first place.

I'm not sugar coating this because the statistics back it up 110% when you compare the number of shootings and their severity in Canada vs the USA. If Canada had the same gun restrictions as the USA, more people would have died, pure and simple. The fact that this guy had a gun which is now easier to attain is pretty good proof of that. If you make it easier for murderers and criminals to get guns, they will use them.

You are wrong, because you get bad info. Hunting rifles are much more lethal than ARs. The .223 which is what it shoots isn't even legal for hunting anything bigger than groundhog because it lacks power. Shooting faster is only helpful for pinning people down, other than that it just wastes ammo. One round from a 30-30 will bring down a person, you are far more likely to need a second or third round from a .223 to do this.

Fuck man, I dont know what the fuck you're talking about, we're not talking about how powerful a gun is, and in this case IT DOESNT MATTER. It takes a pound of pressure to puncture flesh, and it's not like everyone is wearing a bullet proof vest like in the USA. Every gun on the planet will impact with more strength than a pound, from almost any distance. How many american killing sprees were done with a hunting rifle where the guy wasn't an expert sniper or marksman? In Cirillo's case, where the guy wasn't an expert shooter, then the gun of choice wouldn't ideally be a hunting rifle. He used a hunting rifle because it was easier to get, simple as that. If you swung a gun from left to right which can fire off 100 rounds in 20 seconds, you'll have a better chance of getting maximum casualties than if you shot the same way with a hunting rifle. Efficiency man, cmon, I know you're thick but you can't be this thick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I couldn't agree more. And to bama, there was plenty of time between the shooting and when he was shot that he could have easily shot numerous other individuals, and it wasn't at that point that he had met armed resistance. If you even bothered to watch the video footage, he didn't really meet much armed opposition until he entered the parliament building. What he had was essentially a hunting rifle, not exactly a mass killing weapon the same way many other weapons in the states are. If he had a weapon that could he could spray and pray, or one with a bigger magazine, then yeah, more people would be dead. And if the Long Gun registry was still in effect, it would be easy to assume that he wouldn't have been able to get ahold of such a weapon in the first place.

I'm not sugar coating this because the statistics back it up 110% when you compare the number of shootings and their severity in Canada vs the USA. If Canada had the same gun restrictions as the USA, more people would have died, pure and simple. The fact that this guy had a gun which is now easier to attain is pretty good proof of that. If you make it easier for murderers and criminals to get guns, they will use them.

You are wrong, because you get bad info. Hunting rifles are much more lethal than ARs. The .223 which is what it shoots isn't even legal for hunting anything bigger than groundhog because it lacks power. Shooting faster is only helpful for pinning people down, other than that it just wastes ammo. One round from a 30-30 will bring down a person, you are far more likely to need a second or third round from a .223 to do this.

Fuck man, I dont know what the fuck you're talking about, we're not talking about how powerful a gun is, and in this case IT DOESNT MATTER. It takes a pound of pressure to puncture flesh, and it's not like everyone is wearing a bullet proof vest like in the USA. Every gun on the planet will impact with more strength than a pound, from almost any distance. How many american killing sprees were done with a hunting rifle where the guy wasn't an expert sniper or marksman? In Cirillo's case, where the guy wasn't an expert shooter, then the gun of choice wouldn't ideally be a hunting rifle. He used a hunting rifle because it was easier to get, simple as that. If you swung a gun from left to right which can fire off 100 rounds in 20 seconds, you'll have a better chance of getting maximum casualties than if you shot the same way with a hunting rifle. Efficiency man, cmon, I know you're thick but you can't be this thick.

quote:

You may not know this but SCOTUS has upheld that LEOs have NO duty to protect individuals. Hence the saying, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."

quote:

From Robert Heinlein's address at the U.S. Naval Academy (5 April 1973)

quote:

Selfishness is the bedrock on which all moral behavior starts and it can be immoral only when it conflicts with a higher moral imperative. An animal so poor in spirit that he won't even fight on his own behalf is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed is to crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes.

The next higher level is to work, fight, and sometimes die for your own immediate family. This is the level at which six pounds of mother cat can be so fierce that she'll drive off a police dog. It is the level at which a father takes a moonlighting job to keep his kids in college — and the level at which a mother or father dives into a flood to save a drowning child ... and it is still moral behavior even when it fails.

Evolution is a process that never stops. Baboons who fail to exhibit moral behavior do not survive; they wind up as meat for leopards.

The next level in moral behavior higher than that exhibited by the baboon is that in which duty and loyalty are shown toward a group of your own kind too large for an individual to know all of them. We have a name for that. It is called "patriotism."

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Are you actually saying that the fact that the police can't protect you convinced you that people shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. I hope that is not what you meant.[/color]

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Are you actually saying that the fact that the police can't protect you convinced you that people shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. I hope that is not what you meant.[/color]

No, I'm saying that it forces people to an individualist outlook at rock bottom. 'Society' (and what it can do) is 'not there for you'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I couldn't agree more. And to bama, there was plenty of time between the shooting and when he was shot that he could have easily shot numerous other individuals, and it wasn't at that point that he had met armed resistance. If you even bothered to watch the video footage, he didn't really meet much armed opposition until he entered the parliament building. What he had was essentially a hunting rifle, not exactly a mass killing weapon the same way many other weapons in the states are. If he had a weapon that could he could spray and pray, or one with a bigger magazine, then yeah, more people would be dead. And if the Long Gun registry was still in effect, it would be easy to assume that he wouldn't have been able to get ahold of such a weapon in the first place.

I'm not sugar coating this because the statistics back it up 110% when you compare the number of shootings and their severity in Canada vs the USA. If Canada had the same gun restrictions as the USA, more people would have died, pure and simple. The fact that this guy had a gun which is now easier to attain is pretty good proof of that. If you make it easier for murderers and criminals to get guns, they will use them.

You are wrong, because you get bad info. Hunting rifles are much more lethal than ARs. The .223 which is what it shoots isn't even legal for hunting anything bigger than groundhog because it lacks power. Shooting faster is only helpful for pinning people down, other than that it just wastes ammo. One round from a 30-30 will bring down a person, you are far more likely to need a second or third round from a .223 to do this.

Fuck man, I dont know what the fuck you're talking about, we're not talking about how powerful a gun is, and in this case IT DOESNT MATTER. It takes a pound of pressure to puncture flesh, and it's not like everyone is wearing a bullet proof vest like in the USA. Every gun on the planet will impact with more strength than a pound, from almost any distance. How many american killing sprees were done with a hunting rifle where the guy wasn't an expert sniper or marksman? In Cirillo's case, where the guy wasn't an expert shooter, then the gun of choice wouldn't ideally be a hunting rifle. He used a hunting rifle because it was easier to get, simple as that. If you swung a gun from left to right which can fire off 100 rounds in 20 seconds, you'll have a better chance of getting maximum casualties than if you shot the same way with a hunting rifle. Efficiency man, cmon, I know you're thick but you can't be this thick.

talk about THICK, 100 rounds in 20 sec, come out of FANTASY LAND DUDE...

there are NO GUNS, ZERO NADA ZIP NONE, available to the general public in the USA that can even come CLOSE to that fire rate

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Are you actually saying that the fact that the police can't protect you convinced you that people shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. I hope that is not what you meant.[/color]

No, I'm saying that it forces people to an individualist outlook at rock bottom. 'Society' (and what it can do) is 'not there for you'.

That would seem to lead a person to oppose taking guns from citizens, not to encourage it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Are you actually saying that the fact that the police can't protect you convinced you that people shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. I hope that is not what you meant.[/color]

No, I'm saying that it forces people to an individualist outlook at rock bottom. 'Society' (and what it can do) is 'not there for you'.

That would seem to lead a person to oppose taking guns from citizens, not to encourage it.

It would do, yes, unless there's a fundamental re-think on the acceptance of the police not being able to protect you. Either more police or less danger from which they protect you, would obviously be the first thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Selfishness is the bedrock on which all moral behavior starts and it can be immoral only when it conflicts with a higher moral imperative. An animal so poor in spirit that he won't even fight on his own behalf is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed is to crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes.
The next higher level is to work, fight, and sometimes die for your own immediate family. This is the level at which six pounds of mother cat can be so fierce that she'll drive off a police dog. It is the level at which a father takes a moonlighting job to keep his kids in college — and the level at which a mother or father dives into a flood to save a drowning child ... and it is still moral behavior even when it fails.
Evolution is a process that never stops. Baboons who fail to exhibit moral behavior do not survive; they wind up as meat for leopards.
The next level in moral behavior higher than that exhibited by the baboon is that in which duty and loyalty are shown toward a group of your own kind too large for an individual to know all of them. We have a name for that. It is called "patriotism."

I'm not sure what to make of that last - it has a sort of triumphant ring to it, like, 'this is what we've got and what you lack'. That would be rubbish, if so. 'Duty' and 'loyalty' can be, and evidently are, interpreted entirely differently from one society to another. They can be aggressive - against an external or an internal enemy - or they can be something entirely different. In the case of Breivik, in Norway, the tone was more one of 'this is one of ours gone badly wrong - we have a duty to stop him doing more damage, but then to understand what went wrong'. That's the social side of patriotism, rather than the sort that you seem to be describing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

here's an IDEA, if someone is misunderstanding what you are saying, MAYBE explain your position rather than just CALL THEM NAMES?

WHAT A CONCEPT

cause I definitely see her point. if not having guns saves lives, and someone is attacked with a knife or club, and the victim has NO GUN, who's live is saved? NOT THE VICTEM'S

Here is a better IDEA, read the fucking link. Then you might understand what I was talking about and people might not CALL YOU NAMES.

WHAT A CONCEPT.

FYI my link shows how lives have been saved due to laws being introduced. You can argue with me but you cant argue with facts.

actually I DID read the link and many many many other's post by people who share your opinion, and they all say the SAME THING, death by GUN is down, not that DEATHS are down, just BY GUNS

which leaves a HUGE hole in you argument...

now if you show me a link that says MURDER/DEATH in general is DOWN because of gun control, then ya got a point, but all these links say is death cause by this particular method is down...

they leave it up to the reader to decide whether the would be killer used a knife since be had no access to a gun or not...

soooo if the goal is to save LIVES, show me a link that says LIVES IN GENERAL were saved, not just that death by a certain method is down

ALL those links leave it up to SPECULATION as to whether LIVES were saved or whether the same number of people died just killed by a different method..

CHECK and MATE

sure ban guns and death by guns WILL GO DOWN, but that doesn't mean the killers didn't just KILL ANOTHER WAY!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Are you actually saying that the fact that the police can't protect you convinced you that people shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. I hope that is not what you meant.[/color]

No, I'm saying that it forces people to an individualist outlook at rock bottom. 'Society' (and what it can do) is 'not there for you'.

That would seem to lead a person to oppose taking guns from citizens, not to encourage it.

It would do, yes, unless there's a fundamental re-think on the acceptance of the police not being able to protect you. Either more police or less danger from which they protect you, would obviously be the first thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Try living in a country where fear isn't a prevailing theme, you might find it a very civilized experience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117


Fuck man, I dont know what the fuck you're talking about, we're not talking about how powerful a gun is, and in this case IT DOESNT MATTER. It takes a pound of pressure to puncture flesh, and it's not like everyone is wearing a bullet proof vest like in the USA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

here's an IDEA, if someone is misunderstanding what you are saying, MAYBE explain your position rather than just CALL THEM NAMES?

WHAT A CONCEPT

cause I definitely see her point. if not having guns saves lives, and someone is attacked with a knife or club, and the victim has NO GUN, who's live is saved? NOT THE VICTEM'S

Here is a better IDEA, read the fucking link. Then you might understand what I was talking about and people might not CALL YOU NAMES.

WHAT A CONCEPT.

FYI my link shows how lives have been saved due to laws being introduced. You can argue with me but you cant argue with facts.

actually I DID read the link and many many many other's post by people who share your opinion, and they all say the SAME THING, death by GUN is down, not that DEATHS are down, just BY GUNS

which leaves a HUGE hole in you argument...

now if you show me a link that says MURDER/DEATH in general is DOWN because of gun control, then ya got a point, but all these links say is death cause by this particular method is down...

they leave it up to the reader to decide whether the would be killer used a knife since be had no access to a gun or not...

soooo if the goal is to save LIVES, show me a link that says LIVES IN GENERAL were saved, not just that death by a certain method is down

ALL those links leave it up to SPECULATION as to whether LIVES were saved or whether the same number of people died just killed by a different method..

CHECK and MATE

sure ban guns and death by guns WILL GO DOWN, but that doesn't mean the killers didn't just KILL ANOTHER WAY!!

Not much point you mentioning board game terms, such as "Check and Mate" since you havent got a Cluedo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Are you actually saying that the fact that the police can't protect you convinced you that people shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. I hope that is not what you meant.[/color]

No, I'm saying that it forces people to an individualist outlook at rock bottom. 'Society' (and what it can do) is 'not there for you'.

That would seem to lead a person to oppose taking guns from citizens, not to encourage it.

It would do, yes, unless there's a fundamental re-think on the acceptance of the police not being able to protect you. Either more police or less danger from which they protect you, would obviously be the first thing.

Yes more police would help and in the big cities like Detroit where the people live close together, this would mean faster response times. Unfortunately at least in Detroits case, they have been mismanaged to the point that they don't have the money to hire them. So that's not going to happen. So we move to your next suggestion of less danger. Also a good idea although from what I have seen the police are already locking people up and that hasn't stopped the criminals so I am not sure how you are going to do that. I suppose they could impose stricter sentencing but then people would just bitch about how many people we lock up. Oh wait, they already do that. Never mind. I guess the solution isn't quite as simple as you seem to think it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

WOW, I'm right your wrong, so there is no need to address what you said NA NA NA...

what a COMPELLING ARGUMENT!

way to GLOSS over the garing HOLE in your argument

it REALLY SIMPLE, here is a CLEAR example. if you took away ALL red cars, then the deaths by people in red cars would go down dramaticly, but does it produce an overall lowering of auto deaths?

if you take away guns OF COURSE less people will die by guns, but is there any evidence you can produce that says since guns were removed less people overall died by violent acts?

now go ahead and WAVE YOUR MAGIC WAND, and say well that isn't relevant to the conversation, because um errr um because I SAID SO!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I couldn't agree more. And to bama, there was plenty of time between the shooting and when he was shot that he could have easily shot numerous other individuals, and it wasn't at that point that he had met armed resistance. If you even bothered to watch the video footage, he didn't really meet much armed opposition until he entered the parliament building. What he had was essentially a hunting rifle, not exactly a mass killing weapon the same way many other weapons in the states are. If he had a weapon that could he could spray and pray, or one with a bigger magazine, then yeah, more people would be dead. And if the Long Gun registry was still in effect, it would be easy to assume that he wouldn't have been able to get ahold of such a weapon in the first place.

I'm not sugar coating this because the statistics back it up 110% when you compare the number of shootings and their severity in Canada vs the USA. If Canada had the same gun restrictions as the USA, more people would have died, pure and simple. The fact that this guy had a gun which is now easier to attain is pretty good proof of that. If you make it easier for murderers and criminals to get guns, they will use them.

You are wrong, because you get bad info. Hunting rifles are much more lethal than ARs. The .223 which is what it shoots isn't even legal for hunting anything bigger than groundhog because it lacks power. Shooting faster is only helpful for pinning people down, other than that it just wastes ammo. One round from a 30-30 will bring down a person, you are far more likely to need a second or third round from a .223 to do this.

Fuck man, I dont know what the fuck you're talking about, we're not talking about how powerful a gun is, and in this case IT DOESNT MATTER. It takes a pound of pressure to puncture flesh, and it's not like everyone is wearing a bullet proof vest like in the USA. Every gun on the planet will impact with more strength than a pound, from almost any distance. How many american killing sprees were done with a hunting rifle where the guy wasn't an expert sniper or marksman? In Cirillo's case, where the guy wasn't an expert shooter, then the gun of choice wouldn't ideally be a hunting rifle. He used a hunting rifle because it was easier to get, simple as that. If you swung a gun from left to right which can fire off 100 rounds in 20 seconds, you'll have a better chance of getting maximum casualties than if you shot the same way with a hunting rifle. Efficiency man, cmon, I know you're thick but you can't be this thick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

WOW, I'm right your wrong, so there is no need to address what you said NA NA NA...

what a COMPELLING ARGUMENT!

way to GLOSS over the garing HOLE in your argument

it REALLY SIMPLE, here is a CLEAR example. if you took away ALL red cars, then the deaths by people in red cars would go down dramaticly, but does it produce an overall lowering of auto deaths?

if you take away guns OF COURSE less people will die by guns, but is there any evidence you can produce that says since guns were removed less people overall died by violent acts?

now go ahead and WAVE YOUR MAGIC WAND, and say well that isn't relevant to the conversation, because um errr um because I SAID SO!

Boy oh boy, are you really so stupid ? The thread is about gun control, so you want to say gun control doesnt work, since people still get killed. You cant even get that part either. Murder rates in the UK are falling and have done so after the most recent ban on hand guns. crime is also falling, including violent crime. Read the following blog, as it bears out government crime statistics. Note that murders in general are way higher in the US, whichever way you look at it. So either stop bullshitting or post some actual facts.

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

I hope I have explained why I am right and YOU are WRONG but feel free to show me some stats. [8|]