Woman shot following Walking Dead argument
- Thread starter the G-man
- Start date
pssst...you skipped right over the part that making guns illegal will not get rid of guns, it will ensure no one has guns but bad guys, so, the bad guys will get worse
As I said, if you're gonna kill me, I'll take the bullet to the head over being beaten to death with a baseball bat or stabbed with a knife repeatedly, thank you
THIS!!
Thank GOD! Someone with intelligence.
It's amazing it wasn't the Walking Dead video game then they could kill two birds with one stone, you know the old "Video games breed violent people AND Video games are training simulators for people to go on shooting sprees and all that other nonsense.
Bottom line these people are not right to begin with, it could have just as easily been over who drank the last bit of the milk and done with a baseball bat.
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE!! People kill people.
It doesn't matter if you have a gun or not, if you are so sick that you are going to snap and kill someone a fork out of the dishwasher will do.
I play violent video games practically every day and I watch tons of shoot em' ups, I also have a concealed weapons permit (had it 15 + years now ) I have a Gun in my truck and several in my house and I would never, EVER think of pulling it unless me or mine were directly threatened and I had not other choice but to do so.
Interesting... So banning guns didn't stop all crime? Huh.
There is drastically less gun-related crimes, though, which would seem to be what's relevant. I don't pretend to know what would happen in a United States sans legal firearms, but here the restrictions on firearms - including for policemen (who have been predominantly unarmed since the 1920s) - has not exactly given us a whole lot of gun related crime.
So the supposition illegal guns = only criminals have guns is a little simplistic, as generally less people right across the board have guns.
Less gun-related crimes, perhaps, but then more knife-related crimes? More bat-related crimes? Why is it the gun to be demonized and not the person themself?
What is your position on immolation or being eaten by piranha?
Well, to be fair most of those people we lock up do horrible things like... smoke marijuana. Priorities, people!
That's the first sign you're dealing with the walking dead.
I'd still prefer the gunshot to the head for $500.00, Alex.
What, is that a rhetorical question?
This guy shooting his girlfriend was clearly impulsive, since he later helped her to the hospital. If he did not have a gun it's not likely he could have done as much damage as he did before he started regreeting it. Guns are particularly bad when it comes to impulsive violence like that.
And stuff like that shooting in Denver this year? You can't do that with a knife or a hurley stick. Guns are better at hurting people and hurting larger groups of people in shorter time periods, and if you can't get your head around that I have no idea what to say.
The guy in Denver could just as easily went down a row of seats stabbing people in the back of the neck or carried a homemade explosive device or a milk jug full of gasoline in a backpack and lit people on fire, bottom line these people are sick and if they want to hurt or kill a bunch of people they could do so, blaming guns for sick peoples violent acts is ludicrous.
ABC News:
- After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns....
But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.
Reason magazine:
- In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted....
From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
Do you have an actual example of a single guy murdering a large civilian crowd with a knife, or is this just random making stuff up?
Give people access to simpler and deadlier ways to kill people and they will be able to kill more people with less cause. Give everyone a nuclear warhead, sure, maybe the vast majority of the human race would be responsible and never use it, but it'd only take a few people to blow up the world with them.
Nuclear warhead crime would not be the same thing as tank crime, and tank crime would not be the same thing as gun crime.
I do not get what's so hard to grasp about that. If you want to argue that illegalising guns in the United States would not solve the preponderance of guns, fine, I don't pretend to know otherwise. But if you want to insist they're somehow not significantly more dangerous than knives, that's something I can't understand.
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
They might be more dangerous but they have their drawbacks, one of them is that they are wery loud.
Last edited:
Of course I'm not saying that a gun is less dangerous as a knife, ever hear the old saying never bring a knife to a gun fight?
What I am saying though is your average Joe doesn't have access to a gun as much as they would a knife, gallon of gas or even a car.
I'm saying IF, in your sick mind (not yours, you know what I mean) you wanted to kill a bunch of people a gun wouldn't be needed.
I wonder statistically (especially the last few years) how many people kill or have been killed while texting while they are driving a car as opposed to gun deaths.
I've heard of 3 in the last month or so right here in my local area.
One of my good friends was rear ended and killed a few years ago because some stupid kid was texting and didn't see that traffic had stopped on the interstate.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/article1013923.ece
Shouldn't we outlaw cars or even texting as well?
We have been killing each other since the beginning of time, blame the person not the tool used to kill.
Last edited:
Similar threads
