Shooting of the Day
- Started
- Last post
- 2,776 Responses
- formed1
This, more or less, concludes the discussion
(it should, at least)
- And how does this conclude the discussion I wonder. That guns are bad? That we need to round up the millions of guns in America? Keep dreaminggilgamush
- Not gonna happen. The discussion is what to do about the problem, not whether or not there is a problem. C'mon formed, keep upgilgamush
- Send all gun owners to Syria!i_monk
- Nice to see you agree that guns are a problem, gmush, for a second I thought you were rambling on about how they aren't a problemformed
- uuuum no, the guns aren't the problem, it's the people pulling the triggers. seems pretty obvious. anyways, even if the guns had minds of their own, there are fgilgamush
- far too many of them for the disarmament 'solution' to even be worth talking about. it simply isn't going to happen. explore other optionsgilgamush
- That's exactly the point.. humans are flawed and unpredictable and mental unstable... then why do we have these murder machines available foriCanHazQBN
- anyone to purchase??? You can't regulate people's behavior and actions.. but you can do something about a physical object.iCanHazQBN
- For some reason that idea can't sink through your head.iCanHazQBN
- It's too late. We already all have guns. Disarmament is unrealistic. Sink that through your headgilgamush
- well. almost 3000 people died in 9/11 alone. not saying access to guns isnt a huge problem.. but It makes me wonder how are they quantifying these numbers.boom
- deathboy0
Last thing i'd want is a nut job to NOT be able to get a gun and have start thinking creatively on how to get the most social impact from planned attacks... I don't even see it as a gun problem as much as a culture problem. I think this social media and all this new connectedness over sharing is really fucking with peoples systems of values. I think it's just going to be the new norm in a culture of FOMO and oversharing. Cultural life as been redefined as a perpetual round of entertainment, the people the audience, and their public business a vaudeville act. So many people find the necessity to share their lives with a world that doesn't really care, why wouldn't people also want to share some bullets while they perform their last act.
- Many developed countries have the same internet culture, entertainment/celeb culture and oversharing culture. They don't have the same gun massacres.nb
- Interesting perspectivegilgamush
- the loss of identity affects people less in other cultures where there is actually an overarching culture to be found. here in the us, teenagers undergo a muchgilgamush
- more pronounced identity crisis. deathboy is on to somethinggilgamush
- still not the same culture. i'd say we invented the culture with columbine. before that how many mass shootings with less gun regulations?deathboy
- There is no data to support that US teens have a different "identity crisis" than other nations. Number of prescriptions is not a valid argument.nb
- and why isn't it. think critically for a moment nb, not trying to be patronizing but it seems obvious to me. other countries have cultural national identitiesgilgamush
- we in the u.s. as a nation of immigrants that have all assimilated away our own cultures have formed this strange morally bankrupt pseudo culture of distractiongilgamush
- and excess. there are no overarching values other than the love of stuff, material goodgilgamush
- *material goods, and fame. these morally empty, desensitized young men get thier 15 minutes of fame and we give it to them because it suits the agendas of the agilgamush
- alarmists who want to strip you of your rights, and it suits our own purposes because it serves as a needed distraction from the real evils going on behind thegilgamush
- scenes, that we all are implicit in, in our inactiongilgamush
- *complicitgilgamush
- utopian4
Make America Great Again!
- <fadein11
- if the numbers were the issue we should ban Alcohol. It is the cause of 80K deaths a year.BabySnakes
- Silly comparisons - guns serve one purpose: To Kill.formed
- but the effects of a hypothetical gun prohibition would be very similar. wouldn't stop the criminals, just make it harder for good people to defend themselvesgilgamush
- ^ what's ratio between guns being used for protection versus guns used for crime?aliastime
- good questiongilgamush
- but seeing as how guns used in crimes are almost always illegally procured, it doesn't really have anything to do with the gun control discussiongilgamush
- illegally procured at some point, but legally produced and distributed at conception... curbing some of that might help overallmonospaced
- so now you want to interfere with the private sector because people are misusing the products. don't you value personal responsibility at all or do you thing thgilgamush
- that big government is the answer to our societies every problem. mono, change doesn't have to come in the form of lawsgilgamush
- the other problem with this chart is that i would consider these people who go on semi random shooting sprees to be domestic terroristsgilgamush
- fadein114
Can someone explain in a compact form why so many people will not let go of the right to bear arms... or at least have it tighter regulated?
It's insane... I just do not get it.
I know the right argues its liberals taking away freedom etc... but its gotta be deeper than that.
What a strange nation that cares more about the right to carry a gun than having free healthcare for anyone who needs it.
I am not stirring up anything here - just interested why a nation, after so many gun based tragedies refuses to accept it has a massive problem that no other country with tight gun laws suffers from.
- Just blame the victim...it's the Murican way!utopian
- Always wanted to know your nationality Utopian - I agree with pretty much everything you post, are you american but can seefadein11
- its faults? or an ex pat living there? genuinely interested. no QBN pisstake here.fadein11
- Americanutopian
- It's a fetish, plain and simple. 'Mericans are infatuated with guns and will use anything to justify more of them.formed
- Not all of them.monospaced
- formed is infatuated with melodramagilgamush
- the smell of freshly fired gunpowder is said to be addictive... also, taking away guns = castration to some guys...crazy it seemsvaxorcist
- oooooor, it's a constitutional right, not a privilege, and the government will and can not infringe on my rights regardless of the details of the circumstancegilgamush
- unless they feel like invoking the highly unconstitutional ramifications of the patriot act and then who ever they don't like are all getting royally shaftedgilgamush
- And cordite has no chemically habit forming propertiesgilgamush
- constitutional right... I hear this a lot. so you believe your government has no right to change laws that clearly are not working for the good of all? Bizarre.fadein11
- No, the government works for the people, in of itself it cannot change anything. And there aren't enough people who feel the way you so to make any differencegilgamush
- Gilga. Are you for more stric gun law or does that violates your constitutional right?pango
- Strict gun laws won't solve anything in the US. It's different over here. That approach doesn't work, we have tried that and it failedgilgamush
- That logic is more than a little fuzzy. The argument conveniently changes when you bring up the details..."it won't matter", "cars kill people", etc.formed
- The real problem is the lack of acknowledgement and unwillingness to negotiate to make for a safer world.formed
- Tried before? Like what?pango
- where do rights come from?yurimon
- seems like they dont teach critical thinking in art school or civics for that matter.yurimon
- You said USA tried more stric gun laws before. Like what? When?pango
- Are you lazy, do some research pango. should I goglle it for yougilgamush
- how do you know how I feel?fadein11
- Yes please google it for me.pango
- C'mon gilga you know there has never been a truly restricting national gun laws that have been attempted. If so, we would have heard about them being lifted.monospaced
- In fact, it would be a major topic.monospaced
- There was an assault weapon ban that has expired and various states have more or less severe restrictions. It difrent state to stategilgamush
- deathboy-6
Well guns are already heavy regulated. What magical plan do you have that will allow people to have the right to own and operate firearms while keeping them out of the hands of people who will abuse them? Nobody has a solution to this that doesn't infringe on gun owners rights. If you don't like firearms think of it like booze. I'd claim booze takes more lifes than guns. Do you want to have your right to drink or buy booze infringed upon because some bad apples. And remember prohibition. Gun advocates see the logical progression of an all out ban from some political talking head who needs a platform to run on.
And gun rights is a natural right that doesn't infringe on anyone. Healthcare isn't a right because it can only be had by taking from others. I'm glad people fight for a right more than forceful wealth distribution.
I'm not a gun owner. But I respect their rights. Maybe other people should too. Its just plain courtesy. You have to think what kind of person you are to deny someone something? How would u like it if someone wanted to deny you something? I find it strange people don't understand that.
- -deathboymoldero
- "Gun rights is a natural right that doesn't infringe on anyone. Healthcare isn't a right because it can only be had by taking from others." HOLY SHIT, man. WTF.nb
- Not trying to be a dick, here. Can you not see how gun rights are taking from others? Lives of kids? Victims? Public healthcare costs less to taxpayers than...nb
- ...private healthcare does, when you factor in actual costs to the people using it. And everyone eventually needs some healthcare.nb
- refreshing clearheadednessgilgamush
- I think making guns harder to get than a drivers license would be best. With psych evaluation too. Oh and ban the really big ones.monospaced
- Using the same logic, you could justify owning any kind of weapon. Owning a tank or chemical weapons "doesn't infringe on anyone."yuekit
- i don't think you're being a dick NB. I think your mixin up murder and property rights. If you want a tank buy a tank. Im sure you can. See if u find a market.deathboy
- can't talk about rights around here without everyone getting all poetic lol. mono, pistols are the ones used in most homicides, really big ones aren't an issuegilgamush
- just another example of how peoples lack of understanding and fear leads them to come to irresponsible and ineffective 'solutions'gilgamush
- So anyone should be able to own chemical weapons and WMDs? Your absolutist way of looking at things is silly, at some point any rational society is going toyuekit
- consider the practical impacts of everyone being armed to the teeth rather than some abstract concept of "rights."yuekit
- the bottom line is that owning firearms in america is a right not a privilege, therefor be very careful how you tread on these specific rights because the othergilgamush
- others will follow in suitgilgamush
- oh ukit, you have to realize what your saying is a complete red herring, you cannot posses things that violate various international conventionsgilgamush
- I understand pistols are used often, but so are the AK-47s. I'm not trying to tread on a right, but I think getting some guns out of the picture is a good startmonospaced
- I just find it hard to believe that the ease at which people can get guns and other weapons has nothing to do with the problem.monospaced
- yukit its abstract thinking everyone is going to have a tank and wmds. and impractical. the costs of such things and reason of owning would be pointless acceptdeathboy
- International conventions are irrelevant...could international law nullify some other constitutional right? Of course not.yuekit
- The fact is that the 2nd Amendment isn't an absolute right to own any weapon, and I think most people, even the NRA, accept that even if they won't admit it.yuekit
- in the case of military which we already have, No home owner would feel the need to own a tank for home safety, unless youre dan blizeriandeathboy
- So the question becomes where to draw the line...that's what you should really be asking instead of getting so fanatical about it.yuekit
- I agree, ukitmonospaced
- i understand what you are saying but i don't see how it will have any meaninfull impact. gun homicides are the problem and gun homicides are almost always carrigilgamush
- Who's fanatical? You brought in tanks and wmds. All property rights are absolute. Unless law dictates other wise. But than thats laws fault.deathboy
- carried out by pistols. you aren't outlawing pistols so why outlaw ak-47s? because they look scary? it's foolishnessgilgamush
- I can't see any regulation that isn't already in place to stop the will of crazy people. If you do please put proposal forth to your local politcian. And votedeathboy
- That is the most rational action, and let people and states choose what works for them. if u are going to deny freedom through laws let their be competition anddeathboy
- The point is that everyone, even the most pro NRA fanatic, accepts some constraints on weapons ownership for public safety reasons.yuekit
- choice. And see if a state with a ban on guns becomes safer and people move their and other states adopt. best way to find what worksdeathboy
- So public safety and practicality trumps the absolute right to own any weapon. I don't think many people would make a serious argument against that.yuekit
- you have to show that the dichotomy you have proposed is valid before you can make that argument ukit. start by being more specific in your languagegilgamush
- The reason I think we should ban guns LIKE the AK-47 and similar is that they are designed to kill many people at close range, for war essentially.monospaced
- It seems reasonable to start at something like that. Maybe getting one would be insanely hard outside the military. Grenades, etc.monospaced
- i get it, i do. but i'm afraid it would have little to no impact on the urban areas like chicago where the bulk of this nation's gun homicides take place. why ngilgamush
- not focus on something a little more pragmatic, like the way the media covers these shootings, sensationalizing them. that should be curtailed as it encouragesgilgamush
- like minded people. and i am not suggesting the government step in, i am say we the people, the consumer should demand the media stop that shitgilgamush
- these issues are societal and having the government play daddy and pass laws about it is a cop out of our own responsibilitiesgilgamush
- and I agree that the focus can also be on what you are saying...but there's no way to say for sure it won't make a difference unless we do it.monospaced
- I believe that cracking down on guns will help at a significant level, even more than regulating the media's coverage.monospaced
- well, we can say it won't make a difference because automatic rifles aren't whats being used in the vast majority of the homicides, why waste time. is it just sgilgamush
- so that you can then say 'look, we did something'. that kind of self serving and complacent law is why we are in such hot water. no, we as citizens have to takgilgamush
- take responsibility for the fucked up culture we prop up and act accordingly. this is why i react so negatively when people bash religion. religion tries to engilgamush
- instill a moral compass in people, it doesn't always succeed but a moral compass is what so many people are lacking, they just want the gubment to make all thegilgamush
- value judgement for themgilgamush
- and we can't say that stopping media sensationalism will do shit either, it's certainly not what's being used in a single homicidemonospaced
- And then there's the whole violence culture/games/etc that keep it going. I understand you don't think it'll work, but I truly believe it would help... a lot.monospaced
- Peacemonospaced
- every one of these mass murdering children state that they are inspired by how much attention some previous mass murder got. that's plenty evidence to megilgamush
- and they also had easy access to gunsmonospaced
- As do we all, and always will. Making them harder to obtain legally doesn't change thatgilgamush
- You don't believe it but I and many others do including the president. You can't just say it won't work flat out.monospaced
- Believe what exactly. Are you really citing a politician as an objective source. C'mon nowgilgamush
- Believe what? Believe making them harder to obtain will change things, that's what. It's what we've been talking about. C'mon now.monospaced
- Harder to obtain legally. They are everywhere, and if somebody wants to commit a criminal act with a gun they can easily find one. All you are talking about iitgilgamush
- *is making it harder to legally obtain one which does nothing in the grand scheme but take away from honest peoplegilgamush
- moldero0
- there you go, he said it himself. if you want to live somewhere with no guns move to australiagilgamush
- Considering the setbacks from those right-wingers, moving would be way easier than making the US a decent & safe place to live, that's for damn sure.moldero
- Depends on your point of view. I'm sure most people would say that is is far safer over all than Mexico, and yet, there you aregilgamush
- *that it isgilgamush
- Ramanisky20
The shooter 26-year-old Briton Chris Harper-Mercer, appeared to have bought Nazi paraphernalia online and supported the IRA.
- quote from him
"Seems the more people you kill, the more your're [sic] in the limelight."
more proof that the more attention we pay to this phenomenon, the mgilgamush - more it will happen. we should get rid of this thread and boycot the news sources who plaster this shit everywhere. no more 15min of fame, it's why they are doigilgamush
- doing it.(other than the obvious phycopathy)gilgamush
- *psychopathygilgamush
- so ignoring the epidemic will make it go away?Al_dizzle
- In a way. They do it for the infamy. Take from them that infamy and the otherwise senseless crime will be without a motivegilgamush
- HAHAHA yeah let's censor information it will prevents deathsernexbcn
- Self censorship. Seems like an obvious stepgilgamush
- Anything can be taken out of context. You basically said the same thing and could be quoted the same way had you shot some teenagers at school.monospaced
- What the fuck is that supposed to mean, try againgilgamush
- you're saying this quote was proof that it was media driven, that's what I mean... you said the same thing, and could easily be quoted accordinglymonospaced
- That's ridiculous. Almost every person who has gone on these rampages has said the same thing. The fuck are you talking aboutgilgamush
- I'm saying, just because someone says it doesn't mean they are going to go on a rampage. e.g. you. Which is my point that I don't think it's a real motivator.monospaced
- quote from him
- gilgamush-3
http://nhpr.org/post/gun-crime-n…
New Hampshire, more guns, easier to get guns, less homicide. there are more pertinent factors here than the ease of access to guns and the amount of them. too much focus being laid on inanimate objects and not enough towards the failings of our culture.
- i used to site this all the time back when i was pro gun, then the shit hit the fan.moldero
- Sandyhook is what did it for memoldero
- bad comparison. population of NH is 1.3 million, or just a little less than Manhattan.robotron3k
- could you be more clear as to what it did for yougilgamush
- Really? 'Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting' doesn't say it all for you? now I know your trolling. I'm done with you on this subject.moldero
- um no, it doesn't say it all, doesn't say much of anything. a psychopath slayed a bunch of children, it's horrific. what does that have to do with yougilgamush
- and tell me, how is that ban on guns going down in mexicogilgamush
- do you have kids?moldero
- & the gun ban isn't doing shit, but to be fair stop signs don't do shit down here either.moldero
- yes, and if sandy hook was anywhere near me i would have advocated for teachers to conceal carry. these cowards target the most helpless and vulnerablegilgamush
- targets. they are not combatants, they are murderers and they will not engage a target if they think the target may be armed. notice how the mall shootings havegilgamush
- tapered off. to many armed people in malls for these cowards to think they can rack up a big enough body count to get the media frenzy and infamy they are aftergilgamush
- *too manygilgamush
- I agree, they are predators preying on the weak, but the solution your backing is 'more guns for less violence' and its an unproven and unnecessary gamble justmoldero
- gun control has been proven and effective in "normal" countries like Aus and Fra,moldero
- Mexico has its own crazy issues, using MX as an example doesn't really work because MX is nothing like the US.moldero
- well the us and mx are a lot more alike than the us and those 'normal' countries wouldn't you agreegilgamush
- I used to use the MX excuse as well, here on QBN in fact, the thing is, shit changes, gun violence has gone to a whole new level up theremoldero
- All the more reason for a meaningfull discourse and to leave behind the altruistic black and white scenarios that will never come to passgilgamush
- ^^^ the US is more like MX then FRA & AUS? Ive never been to FRA or AUS, but living here in MX since '07 this shit is nothing like the US hence why I'm heremoldero
- A fierce sence of individual liberty that is lacking over theregilgamush
- I'm not articulating myself that well with that, give me a secondgilgamush
- You would want kindergarten teachers to have a concealed weapons at school? Really? Damn.monospaced
- if you have to compare Mexico with the US to make an argument there is nothing really to discuss hereernexbcn
- The US has gun culture imbedded in its core values, similar to Mexico, unlike European culturesgilgamush
- true, they have boobs embedded in theirsmoldero
- but I can write so many stories on how insanely different this place is over the US, but I'd rather do it over a pint, just way too much to type + its friday.moldero
- I'm viewing the waves from my office and thinking I'm gonna go hit a few.moldero
- Good shit brother, let's do this some other timegilgamush
- Fax_Benson2
gilgamush - yeah, there are lots of contributing factors as to why these events keep happening - and you're using them as a reason not to have to meet anybody half way.
But why would you? You know you're right.
- gilgamush should become and or already is a lobbyist for the NRA.utopian
- What part of meeting half way is the banning of guns. What are you talking aboutgilgamush
- nobody sensible is talking about banning gunsFax_Benson
- So what are you talking about then. The the prospective gun banners are the ones I was strongly disagreeing with. Explain your stancegilgamush
- making them more difficult to buy, own, background checks. I don't know. Anything reasonable that might be worth tryingFax_Benson
- Exactly. I would love for no guns but I also respect our rights. I think a ban on some kinds of weapons and checks are in order.monospaced
- So then why is it unreasonable to suggest that we should stop giving these psychopaths the recognition that they murder to get. In stead of some law thatgilgamush
- May or may not do any goodgilgamush
- And by the way, criminals don't follow laws so who do these laws actually effect, not the criminals that's for suregilgamush
- that's not unreasonable, you tit. who thinks that's unreasonable?Fax_Benson
- It is reasonable. And so is trying to keep guns out of hands of people who should not have them.monospaced
- But you can't because they are everywhere, it's too late for that. So stop giving these serial killers the attention they desiregilgamush
- Lol "criminals don't follow laws. Why bother having laws!"pango
- It's not too late. There are some smart ideas on how to start reducing guns, even illegally procured ones. Some are in practice and working in communities.monospaced
- Best practice would be 1000 bucks a bullet. You have to hate someone more than 1000 bucks to fire that shot.pango
- Thy are already artificially expensive. I reload everything other than 22sgilgamush
- i'd say jack up the price 5000%pango
- right, doesn't affect you so why notgilgamush
- iCanHazQBN0
Background checks? Psych checks? Useless. Tragedy would still happen even if someone passes a test.
Someone seemingly stable could answer all the right questions in order to obtain a gun.
Nobody knows what happens to these guns when someone takes one home. A relative could take it and use it. It could get stolen. A million possibilities of how it could get into the wrong hands.
What if someone is no longer mentally stable five years after being allowed to buy a gun? What if five years later, the gun owner now has severe depression? How on Earth can we monitor someone's behavior and feelings like that? We can't.
I personally know a man who shot and killed his wife, her lover, and then himself. He was seemingly stable. Very successful person. But he killed out of rage.
People pull triggers in the heat of the moment. And when they take a psych test, they are the FURTHEST thing from being in any kind of heat-of-the-moment situation.
- this pretty muchernexbcn
- And yet there's the likelihood it would help still. No use being defeatist about it.monospaced
- there's always an answer. always an 'I knew a man'Fax_Benson
- always an exception that proves the rule.Fax_Benson
- no point having tests because somebody might beat itFax_Benson
- No don't get me wrong, I'd rather have tests than no tests at all. It would decrease tragedy... but we'd still have tragedy.iCanHazQBN
- they'll never take our tragedyFax_Benson
- So not entirely useless like I said, but I don't think it would do much. The people who want guns would still get them...iCanHazQBN
- lol FaxiCanHazQBN
- think about the added cost of such measures on the good people which are the majority of owners. if a psych test is implemented and fails than what?deathboy
- then you've triedFax_Benson
- this escalation of policy of trying to stop people from killing people domestically while wars rage seems pretty sillydeathboy
- fucking insane attitudeFax_Benson
- are you for real? You're fucking about, no?Fax_Benson
- Im for real. After psych tests fail. And they will because anyone smart enough to fire a gun can get around that. than what? Think this through faxdeathboy
- What's the goal? Having a test that works 100% or decrease tragedy?pango
- Interesting conversation. Psychopaths are cunning, we know that. Let's deflate their motivating factors seeing as how we can't stop their meansgilgamush
- people pass driving tests and in a state quality controlled licensing schemes but cars still kill more then guns. do we care about lives or you guys also failedyurimon
- a self awareness bias fear and misplaced loathing via media test also. there is deeper psych reasons for bias in statistics that people ignore. sad to see thisyurimon
- Car killing in most case are accident. Gun killing. Not so much.
Again. Do you want a test that works 100% or so you want to decrease tragedy?pango - your argument invalid, http://www.telegraph…yurimon
- More like your argument is invalid. Did anyone die is that incident? What's number of lifes murdered by gun annually?pango
- Less than the number of car related fatalities. Mental health checks for all car sales. I don't know how to drive or own a car but have the moral authority togilgamush
- Demand uninformed and pointless legislature making it harder for honest people to get from a to bgilgamush
- utopian0
Let Freedom Ring!
1 dead, 4 injured in northwest Baltimore shooting
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/multi…
- utopian0
Let Freedom Ring!
3 dead, 1 injured in shooting in Inglis, Florida
http://www.fox13news.com/news/lo…
- Fax_Benson0
Try it. Don't try it. Whatever. I kill my foes with a hammer anyway.
But there must be a reason why you won't consider trying measures that might save lives in the short term. Who cares if it fails. What have you lost?
You keep picking on the the outright gun-banners because their stance suits your argument. You cite social / psychological contributing factors as though it's something only you have the ability to understand - even though everybody agrees on this.
You keep inventing what-if scenarios, keep creating reasons not to do anything. I don't get it.
Make a concession. Concede some ground. Stop being a cunt. Give it a go.
- MEANINGFUL DISCOURSE!Fax_Benson
- Burden of cost on innocent people. Not to mention other headaches. Everyone has enjoyed the TSA lines.deathboy
- 'other headaches' is the best one yetFax_Benson
- 4 0 clock! whoo hoo time to go home play destiny and shoot people in the faces :)deathboy
- It'd be terrible if there was a burden of cost on innocent people. Some kind of burden that people didn't deserve Like getting shot in a school.Fax_Benson
- Not to mention other headaches. Like getting shot in the head.Fax_Benson
- # of Owners vs victims. Many more owners. Be more of a moral crime to impose your beliefs on the many which you can control vs protect from things u cant controdeathboy
- picture it from their perspective. they have a hobby. someone who doesn't like their hobby is making their hobby a nightmare because of their fear or culture.deathboy
- this person doesnt feel their fear. Would u not be upset or oppose them if it was you? that understanding goes much farther than fear an imposing beliefs.deathboy
- Where has imposing fear based beliefs ever solved anything? Religion, gay, drugs. I'm ok with state rights of rules and voting. And hope supreme court woulddeathboy
- throw out any out right bans.deathboy
- monoboy0
It's not just about the guns.
American culture is completely dominated by the stereotypical male gender role. The same pattern emerges each time... 'Misfit looser takes out his frustrations on innocent civilians'.
You have a serious mental health problem.
- a misfit is bound to be looserFax_Benson
- or tighter. either way, MENTAL PROBLEMSFax_Benson
- I think you've hit the nail on the head thereFax_Benson
- Right. But we can't fix stupid. Unstable people will always be born. We can take guns out of the equation though.iCanHazQBN
- go to Arizona, most girls I know there have guns including my sistermoldero
- Girls can also be influenced by male gender roles.monoboy
- I should also add. If you think the only way to be safe in your environment is to carry a gun, something has gone very wrong.monoboy
- what would Ronnie Pickens do?yurimon
- Use his fists.monoboy
- it's Pickering btw.monoboy
- iCanHazQBN0
Can we admit that what guns are really used for are people shooting others in heat-of-the-moment situations, where one enraged person is gunning down an unsuspecting victim(s)...... and not some bullshit reasons about freedom?
- inteliboy3
this thread:
"We really should do something about this gun problem..."
"FUCK OFF DON'T BAN OUR GUNS!!!"
"Ugh..."
- iCanHazQBN2
I always hear "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Of course people kill people. So then why do we allow people a tool thats sole purpose is to do it with such efficiency? That's precisely why these weapons needs to go away. People kill people.
A scenario (for people like Gilgamush who keep saying "guns are just inanimate objects" — as if because they're "inanimate" then they must be harmless. But they're actually fairly animate considering bullets comes out of them):
You're in a large room with a mentally unstable person, or someone who's just really enraged at you. There's a gun in a cabinet in the far corner. Do you...
1. Try to talk with him? Reason with him? Ask him not to go for it? Tell him about the bad mental healthcare system in America? Call a psychiatrist for him?
Or
2. Run and try to get the gun before he does?
Of course #2. You take the gun (the tangible and real object) out of the equation.
You say we need to take care of the mental issue problem in this country. Well sure, we need to help the mentally unstable anyway. But behavior problems are an ongoing problem since the beginning of the human race. It's not just an American problem. Unstable people are born every day. Their brains are wired wrong and there's no way to know how stable someone is. And even if someone isn't diagnosed as unstable, there's no way to stop an enraged asshole from shooting someone in the heat of the moment situation. Behavior is unpredictable. A gun NOT being there stops these people from ACTING on their mental instabilities and doing harm to others with deadly efficiency.
- If you piss off an aggressive person you will meet bodily harm, so what's your point dumb ass. You are so stupid mangilgamush
- Yeah dummy head! You dumb dumb.monospaced
- nukes don't nuke people, people nuke peoplemoldero
- But gilgamush, I'd rather face an aggressive person who DOESN'T have a gun, rather than an aggressive person who DOES have a gun.iCanHazQBN
- It's really mind-boggling that you can't wrap your head around that concept.iCanHazQBN
- There are different degrees of bodily harm. One could be a fist fight and you get a black eye, and another is a bullet to the head.iCanHazQBN
- I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this to you.iCanHazQBN
- If we remove the gun from the equation, confrontations become a lot less lethal.iCanHazQBN
- So instead of a headline reading "20 people shot and killed", it's "2 people stabbed".iCanHazQBN
- So what's your stance, that nobody should have guns right. Well too fucking bad, that isn't going to happen. Move on and let us attempt to find a realisticgilgamush
- Approach to combat the problem. Or would you rather just spew platitudesgilgamush
- Guns don't kill people. People with guns kills shit tone of people.pango
- Gilga, after my post, all that you have to say is: "Well too fucking bad.. you're not taking my guns".iCanHazQBN
- I think that pretty much means you have zero rebuttal. And it's very telling for the real reasons you want your guns...iCanHazQBN
- ... because you just want them.iCanHazQBN
- no, it's because you have no point. you just go on and on about how they should be banned. we heard you, you fucking idiot, and it isn't ever gonna happen. thegilgamush
- only reason you prattle on your sick bullshit is because you enjoy reveling in how fucked up america is. you are a plain and simple america basher spewing pointgilgamush
- bullshit with the intention only to stir up some shit. go choke on a dickgilgamush
- Criticizing our own country's obvious problems is considered "bashing it"??? LOL.iCanHazQBN
- And I can't choke on a dick. I have no gag reflex. They just go straight down my throat.iCanHazQBN
- criticism with no attempt to help fix anything, because you revel in the hysteria like a sociopath, is bashing, yes. and i doubt you live in the u.s.gilgamush
- really it's more like sadism than sociopathygilgamush
- orrinward23
Let's lighten the mood:
