MissBHaven said, July 20, 2012, 02:24:54 pmCyanide said, July 20, 2012, 01:27:21 pmI blame your stupid constitution and it's right to bear arms. This is terrible.Sorry peaches, not taking the bait on this one. Insane people determined to do bad things will find a way no matter what is outlawed. So why make it easier for them...The right to bare arms only makes the process more swift and acts as training wheels. There is literally nothing to stop anyone from buying 2 semi automatic pistols in the US and walking into a crowded place and firing at will. Over here in the uk the laws on guns are so strict that morons are forced to buy air pistols and convert them into potentially lethal weapons at the risks of killing themselves due to the gun backfiring. Hence less gun related crime and I cant remember the last time in london where a massacre has taken place like this. Even if you cant stop them all. At least make it a difficult task to fulfill.news like this is all too common in the US.
We have the right to bear arms because when there was no United States, other forces were violating people's basic rights. Being sympathetic to such a life style, the forefathers of the United States made sure that it was okay and possible for the people to bear arms for their own protection. The law is there for a reason and no amount of arguing is going to change one of the very justifiable rights of the constitution of the United States of America (well, some Supreme Court arguing will change it).Just because some countries in Europe don't even give their law enforcement guns, doesn't mean America needs to be the same way.Similar to the ridiculous war on drugs, the governments of America could have a war on guns, and the result would be the same, or even worse; that result being that people are still going to get guns and people are still going to kill other people with those guns. Just like drugs are supposedly hard to get and people still get them. And the "war on guns" that I supposed would actually be a war. It could even lead to civil war. The gun laws are fine, the people are bad. Bearing arms is liking bearing chainsaws. If I want to fucking kill someone, someone is going to fucking die. It doesn't matter if my chainsaw is as effective as a gun; one callously taken life is effectively too many.Basic argument: The problem isn't guns, the problem is people.
@rajaa"Basic argument: The problem isn't guns, the problem is people." <- and once again why provide them with the necessary means to make the process easier. It shouldnt be as simple as walking into a gunstore, buying a gun, buying a gas mask, vest and munitions then walking into a crowded place and mass murder. If the problem is the people, why give them the necessary means to carry out heinous acts. especially when that heinous act contributes to well over half of your overall crime rate.The underlining problem is; any old clown can get hold of a gun which is why gun related crime in the US is so high. Logistics would suggest that the factor contributing in the ever climbing crime in the US should be erradicated. Gun related incidents contributes to almost 70% of the overall crime in the US so its fuckers with guns that are the problem. Sure enough if you take away their "tools of the trade" they'll replace it with another but in the long run 70% of your overall crime will have fallen and massacres like these wouldnt be so common.Doing nothing will only see your crime rates rise and thus create yet another lawless state in america. May as well live in the third world.oh and in europe law enforcement officers do carry guns... HK MP5s to be specific in london or HK G36s.
I like how this guy bought bullet proof gear in the event he might get shot at. Fucking coward. Actually his cowardice gets even better, rigging his apartment with explosives. Calling him a pussy is an insult to women and cats.
LM_MAVERIK said, July 21, 2012, 06:07:06 pm@rajaa"Basic argument: The problem isn't guns, the problem is people." <- and once again why provide them with the necessary means to make the process easier. It shouldnt be as simple as walking into a gunstore, buying a gun, buying a gas mask, vest and munitions then walking into a crowded place and mass murder.It's not that simple.LM_MAVERIK said, July 21, 2012, 06:07:06 pm If the problem is the people, why give them the necessary means to carry out heinous acts. especially when that heinous act contributes to well over half of your overall crime rate.Deny everyone their protection because a few people might be crazy? No. That's like not selling knives because someone might go on a stabbing spree. Or maybe we should ban lighters and oil. We don't need licenses to buy oil and lighters.LM_MAVERIK said, July 21, 2012, 06:07:06 pmThe underlining problem is; any old clown can get hold of a gun which is why gun related crime in the US is so high. No. That's not the underlying problem.LM_MAVERIK said, July 21, 2012, 06:07:06 pmLogistics would suggest that the factor contributing in the ever climbing crime in the US should be erradicated. Gun related incidents contributes to almost 70% of the overall crime in the US so its fuckers with guns that are the problem. Sure enough if you take away their "tools of the trade" they'll replace it with another but in the long run 70% of your overall crime will have fallen and massacres like these wouldnt be so common.Stopped reading at 70%. Don't pull things out of nowhere. Please.LM_MAVERIK said, July 21, 2012, 06:07:06 pmDoing nothing will only see your crime rates rise and thus create yet another lawless state in america. May as well live in the third world.What? What? What?LM_MAVERIK said, July 21, 2012, 06:07:06 pmoh and in europe law enforcement officers do carry guns... HK MP5s to be specific in london or HK G36s.Key word from my statement: "some."
Rajaa said, July 21, 2012, 07:00:43 pmLM_MAVERIK said, July 21, 2012, 06:07:06 pm@rajaa"Basic argument: The problem isn't guns, the problem is people." <- and once again why provide them with the necessary means to make the process easier. It shouldnt be as simple as walking into a gunstore, buying a gun, buying a gas mask, vest and munitions then walking into a crowded place and mass murder.It's not that simple.LM_MAVERIK said, July 21, 2012, 06:07:06 pm If the problem is the people, why give them the necessary means to carry out heinous acts. especially when that heinous act contributes to well over half of your overall crime rate.Deny everyone their protection because a few people might be crazy? No. That's like not selling knives because someone might go on a stabbing spree. Or maybe we should ban lighters and oil. We don't need licenses to buy oil and lighters.In general you are right..but comparing knifes..with pistols or machinepistols/ guns?Come on Rajaa. The one thing is made to work with it in the kitchen the other item is clearly created to kill with it. Thats what weapons do. They kill people, they dont protect them
I'm not comparing knives and pistols, I'm comparing how easy it is to get ANYTHING to kill people; if someone wants to kill people, it is as easy as baking a fucking pie - in fact, it's even easier. Quicker too. A gun is just a another human operated tool.Didn't everyone already call you stupid for misunderstanding that concept a few posts ago in this very same thread?
They did? Good i didnt follow the whole thread lolYes, if someone wants to kill someone, its relative easy, depending on how intelligent, fast or powerful that person is, my point was, that you can kill 1-5 people maybe with a knife at a public place before people stop you (except you can fight with a knife) but with a gun you can kill 20+ people in a few minutes , thats the big difference i meant alsoWHAT A GODDAMN IDIOTIC STUPID GUY. 24 years old and has nothing better to do than to kill and hurt a ton of people watching a movie in a cinema. what the hell was in his mind. This case is unbelievable and terrible.
GBK667 said, July 21, 2012, 07:32:33 pmdepending on how intelligent, fast or powerful that person is, my point was, that you can kill 1-5 people maybe with a knife at a public place before people stop you (except you can fight with a knife) but with a gun you can kill 20+ people in a few minutes , thats the big difference i meant I can kill a whole apartment building with a lighter and some oil and I'll still have money left over to grab a bite to eat and watch the show. I don't need to be quick, smart, and/or strong to do it either. Might even be able to get the next building on fire if it's close enough.
-no rajaa it is that simple......thats why gun crime rates are so fucking high in america.-you need a gun to protect yourself? I'm sure the crips and bloods state the same claim when they are apprehended by the police for possession of a fire arm in public.making the comparisson between purchasing a gun and a knife? or as you put (I'm comparing how easy it is to get ANYTHING to kill people; Well rajaa I use a knife to butter my breads and slice my meats. I suppose I could go out and kill someone with it though I guess. But what could I do with a automatic pistol firing armour piercing rounds? what could I do with tear gas? A knife shouldnt have the same availability as a gun the fact that you even stated this makes me worry about your country. Sure people can find anything to kill someone with but like i said for the millionenth why provide them with the tools to make the job even easier and add to the already soaring crime rates in your country.-check your statistics-"what what what" I believe I was crystal clear on that point, dont see how you could have translated that statement any other way- I stated a fact about armed forces in london I didn't need to acknowledge the "some" in your statement
I'm with Maverik on this one (yeah, that sounds like a USA vs Europe argument ...)Of course a crazy guy can take a knife, a chainsaw or a fucking pencil and go kill somebody if he wants, but it won't be possible for him to do it as easily as if he was able to purchase a gun and shoot people in the street.Of course somebody motivated enough can find the means to purchase a gun and do some massive killing (cf. Breivik in Norway or recent shootings in Toulouse, France), but it won't be as easy as going to your local retailer and buying a gun.Of course men are to blame when it comes to something like this, but you can always fight crime by actually not HELPING people purchase these weapons.Example :Imagine the US authorizes citizens to purchase nuclear or biological weapons, in order to protect themselves against possible "bad guys". Basically the idea is to dissuade people from killing the others : "you kill a member of my family, I'll erradicate yours with a nuclear strike or anthrax". Basic dissuasion. That's why civilized countries have nuclear weapons in the first place. Not to actually bomb other countries, but dissuade others from attacking them.Now, a civilian uses his recently purchased nuclear weapon ($500 at Walmart) in the streets and kills 300 people in the process. Who do you blame ? The guy for his stupidity/craziness, or the government for actually authorizing weapons of mass destruction that are to be used as "self defense" ? Of course this guy would have killed people with another weapon if he couldn't purchase a nuclear weapon, but he wouldn't have been able to kill SO MANY people SO EASILY.Now apply this logic to guns.Now, it obviously isn't really easy to ban weapons in a country where they're so common. The lobbying companies (dunno their name nor their actual power, but I know they're VERY rich) wouldn't really allow such laws completely prohibiting weapons to be voted. It's easy for us to say "ban weapons", when it's actually not possible easily, but as long as nothing is done, massive shootings in the US are just local news that nobody should really care about, because they're just trivialities they're asking for.
Doppelganger said, July 21, 2012, 07:44:36 pmI'm with Maverik on this one (yeah, that sounds like a USA vs Europe argument ...)Of course a crazy guy can take a knife, a chainsaw or a fucking pencil and go kill somebody if he wants, but it won't be possible for him to do it as easily as if he was able to purchase a gun and shoot people in the street.Of course somebody motivated enough can find the means to purchase a gun and do some massive killing (cf. Breivik in Norway or recent shootings in Toulouse, France), but it won't be as easy as going to your local retailer and buying a gun.Of course men are to blame when it comes to something like this, but you can always fight crime by actually not HELPING people purchase these weapons.Example :Imagine the US authorizes citizens to purchase nuclear or biological weapons, in order to protect themselves against possible "bad guys". Basically the idea is to dissuade people from killing the others : "you kill a member of my family, I'll erradicate yours with a nuclear strike or anthrax". Basic dissuasion. That's why civilized countries have nuclear weapons in the first place. Not to actually bomb other countries, but dissuade others from attacking them.Now, a civilian uses his recently purchased nuclear weapon ($500 at Walmart) in the streets and kills 300 people in the process. Who do you blame ? The guy for his stupidity/craziness, or the government for actually authorizing weapons of mass destruction that are to be used as "self defense" ? Of course this guy would have killed people with another weapon if he couldn't purchase a nuclear weapon, but he wouldn't have been able to kill SO MANY people SO EASILY.Now apply this logic to guns.Now, it obviously isn't really easy to ban weapons in a country where they're so common. The lobbying companies (dunno their name nor their actual power, but I know they're VERY rich) wouldn't really allow such laws completely prohibiting weapons to be voted. It's easy for us to say "ban weapons", when it's actually not possible easily, but as long as nothing is done, massive shootings in the US are just local news that nobody should really care about, because they're just trivialities they're asking for.Really? Are you absolutely sure about this?It's damn fucking easy to get an illegal gun here that any nut can get one, like the guy above did.Making guns illegal won't solve this.
Rajaa said, July 21, 2012, 07:37:17 pmGBK667 said, July 21, 2012, 07:32:33 pmdepending on how intelligent, fast or powerful that person is, my point was, that you can kill 1-5 people maybe with a knife at a public place before people stop you (except you can fight with a knife) but with a gun you can kill 20+ people in a few minutes , thats the big difference i meant I can kill a whole apartment building with a lighter and some oil and I'll still have money left over to grab a bite to eat and watch the show. I don't need to be quick, smart, and/or strong to do it either. Might even be able to get the next building on fire if it's close enough.Are these cases where maniacs kill 10+ people done with lighters and a bit oil or with guns?
@ Bia : I'm not saying it's black or white. I also covered this with :QuoteOf course a crazy guy can take a knife, a chainsaw or a fucking pencil and go kill somebody if he wants, but it won't be possible for him to do it as easily as if he was able to purchase a gun and shoot people in the street.Of course somebody motivated enough can find the means to purchase a gun and do some massive killing (cf. Breivik in Norway or recent shootings in Toulouse, France), but it won't be as easy as going to your local retailer and buying a gun.Of course men are to blame when it comes to something like this, but you can always fight crime by actually not HELPING people purchase these weapons.Shit happens everywhere, but it happens A LOT in a country that is supposed to be "civilized".I don't know Brazil enough to know if the government actually has the power to enforce the laws about weapons (or if they even want to). When I say you must "abolish guns", I'm not just talking about ministers signing a piece of paper (called law) forbidding weapons, and doing nothing afterwards. I'm actually talking about enforcing said laws, by putting time, man power and money in the process.
Let's just agree to disagree. We all know how internet arguments like this end up. LM_MAVERIK said, July 21, 2012, 07:41:32 pm-check your statisticsIn the United States of America, 70% of all crimes are not committed with guns. You are dead wrong. Sorry.LM_MAVERIK said, July 21, 2012, 07:41:32 pm-"what what what" I believe I was crystal clear on that point, dont see how you could have translated that statement any other way- I stated a fact about armed forces in london I didn't need to acknowledge the "some" in your statementYou don't have to acknowledge the part of my post of which you're trying to repute? Must be some new, hip argumentative technique of which I've never had the pleasure of learning.
Fully agreeing with Rajaa....this time :-)hoooow..ever@Rajaa are you sure that Maverik didnt mean a statistic involving crimes which ended in the death of persons?
I'm sure he meant of ALL of crime:LM_MAVERIK said, July 21, 2012, 06:07:06 pmGun related incidents contributes to almost 70% of the overall crime in the US so its fuckers with guns that are the problem.I'm not sure how one could get such a bogus percentage when the uniformed crime reports are easily accessible on the FBI's website.
The right to bear arms is a constitutional failsafe.Interesting how the scumbag chose to strategically wait for the midnight screening of a highly anticipated move to begin his rampage at.
I have a right to have a gun to protect myself. I mean, someone with a gun could barge in and shoot at me ! Proof is, having a gun to defend themselves sure saved all those people in the theater that shot back at the madman.Oh wait... Having a gun to defend yourself doesn't work. I'm not even talking about having the right to carry one, I'm saying that excuse is wrong on the ground that it doesn't work, I haven't heard about a lot of shooting incidents where the victims proved their right to have a gun was useful.
