University Is Uneasy as Court Ruling Allows Guns on Campus

Status
Not open for further replies.
I feel sorry for people who have to depend on harsh language at best to defend themselves.

You really are an airhead, aren't you?

Get out of your little crevice and explore the world, you have much to learn and experience. My hometown is regularly nominated as one of the most liveable cities in the world, and no-one has a gun and doesn't need one. If I have an issue, or feel unsafe, guns would never be the answer, ever. It's so unnecessary.

That you have no comprehension of why people can live in a society and not have to rely on guns to fell safe and defend themselves is truly staggering.
 
You really are an airhead, aren't you?

Get out of your little crevice and explore the world, you have much to learn and experience. My hometown is regularly nominated as one of the most liveable cities in the world, and no-one has a gun and doesn't need one. If I have an issue, or feel unsafe, guns would never be the answer, ever. It's so unnecessary.

That you have no comprehension of why people can live in a society and not have to rely on guns to fell safe and defend themselves is truly staggering.
The fact you can't understand why people do is truly staggering, but how can I complain too much, in the end I can depend them and not just harsh language. :)
 
I find the thought of people carrying guns incredibly scary. The thought of them in classrooms is just mind boggling.

America is so backwards in some ways. I feel sorry for the Americans who have to worry about the number of guns around them.

I thought so too, until I met people who open carry and conceal carry. I first thought "what the hell, is that a gun?! Why would he have a gun on him?! What's he planning to do with that?!" As I continued to interact with them I realized they plan to do absolutely nothing with it unless someone tries to murder them. Pretty obvious, but that's fear for you.
 
The fact you can't understand why people do is truly staggering, but how can I complain too much, in the end I can depend them and not just harsh language. :)

I could understand why an irrationally paranoid person could...

Still, the joke is on you because you live in a society enveloped with fear, where you feel the need to be armed and one where you feel unsafe UNLESS you're armed to the back teeth. Whereas the rest of us live in places where we can feel safe and secure without the need for automatic killing machines.

It's quite pleasant.
 
Except he's wrong and ignoring the quarter of a million handguns in Spain, and statements by a Spanish gun owner who pots on GAF.

Also 50 gun stores for a country only the size of Arizona and Utah* doesn't seem that odd.

iPad doesn't allow me to get cached links off google

You truly are clueless, man. Hahahaha what the fuck, comparing Spain with Utah. We have like x20 population hahaha.

I don't know what that other gaffer said, or where are you pulling you statistics, but fucking listen to me: WE DO NOT HAVE GUNS HERE AS A NORMAL AN ACCEPTED THING.

You made me read the damn normative here. Look, it says if you want to have a gun in your house, a Guardia Civil patrol (so, militars) have to go to your house and check that you have everything you need to keep them safe. And, before that, you need to get a license. The lowest level of license, which is useful only for handguns, requires you to:

a) Pass a psyquiatric and physical test.
b) Have a perfectly empty criminal record.
c) You need to give a reason for having a gun. And it specifically says that the reason CANNOT be "I want to defend myself and my assets". Look, I paste it for you in Spanish: <<El interesado hará constar en la solicitud los motivos que, a su juicio, justifican la posesión de un arma corta, y acompañará los documentos que considere oportunos. La razón de defensa de personas o bienes, por sí sola, no justifica la concesión de la licencia B.>>
d) The license only lasts for 3 years and you can't renew it automatically.

And this is only for a handgun! So, if you want one for your apartment "just 'cause", you are most likely not going to be able to get one.

Most of those handguns are owned by criminals who obtained them illegaly. Regular people, 99% of the cases, do not have guns. And the logic here is not "omg criminals have guns, is safer for all of us to have guns even in a fucking school class!". The logic is "if I ever see a gun in the hand of a person who is not a law enforcement agent, I call the police".

Now please tell me how in America there are thousands of tragedies avoided because of normal people with guns saved the day. Half of the American population is basically Batman according to you.
 
I know all this about the regs. As I explained Funky Papa has mentioned this before in GAF threads.

We discussed the regs and the pysch and other requirements. That said its nice you know the regs now.

Also you do know that a defensive use of a gun does not require it to be fired.
 
NEW PAGE!
gun control advocates cause the same harm to society that pro-life advocates cause to women.

The fact that you just think its not normal procedure shows you either being really naive or have a bit too biased of a love for Japan.

You don't think a 99% conviction rate doesn't seem a little funny among other things like not respecting the right to remain silent.
http://www.law.ntu.edu.tw/ntulawreview/articles/6-1/13Article-Kazuko Ito_p367-387.pdf
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/manage/wp-content/uploads/soldwedel.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7063316.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/w...79547200&en=a4eb5f0efa88a7a9&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Still lawyers arguing over red tape?
So, in other words, you DON'T have any numbers showing how frequently this occurs. Color me surprised. Until you provide data, you can't make any statement and treat it as fact.

Do you mind answer how it's now doubled from 20x to 40x in two pages? What numbers are you using because I get the feeling you're straight up lying about the murder rates in these countries but you can ignore the post again instead.
I honestly don't know how he got the 40X number. You'd have to ask him. And I'm glad that you pointed this out to me, because I've been incorrectly using absolute murders as murder rate. My apologies. From an absolute numbers standpoint, there are generally 20X more murders in the U.S. compared to the UK. As far as murder RATE on a per capita basis is concerned, it appears from several sources to be about 4X higher in the U.S. compared to the UK. Now this is for ALL murders. If we look at gun-related murders only, it is 60X higher in the U.S. compared to the UK. My apologies for the confusion.

Dude, stop. You are blowing his mind! A society that lives without guns? WHAT THE FUCK. This can't be real, I'm getting on the interwebs yellow pages to PROVE to you that guns are prevalent in your own country even though I've never been there!
Don't bother. You won't find anything. The guns won't be found... unless they want to be found. They are ninja guns. They are everywhere... but they are invisible...

Except he's wrong and ignoring the quarter of a million handguns in Spain, and statements by a Spanish gun owner who pots on GAF.

Also 50 gun stores for a country only the size of Arizona and Utah* doesn't seem that odd.

iPad doesn't allow me to get cached links off google
LOL!!! First, you totally attempt to bullshit everybody by comparing land size, of all things, and then you have the gall to post a link/source in a piss-poor attempt to make your statement appear more legitimate. You are now being intentionally disingenuous. And you know it. Did you HONESTLY think that this was an HONEST and valid comparison to make? REALLY? I really want to know what process went on in your mind that led you to choosing LAND AREA, out of ALL the potential comparisons that you could have chosen from, as your basis of comparison. Everyone here knows the answer already, but it would be interesting to hear to try to spin your way out of this one. Everybody here knows that you are bullshitting. Everybody here knows that a proper comparison would be one of population density. Yes, Japan and Utah are physically the same size, but Japan has 45X more people. Thus, using this PROPER and HONEST comparison, you get the following:

If 50 gun stores for a country the size of Utah doesn't seem odd, then it wouldn't be considered unusual if Japan had 2250 gun stores. Therefore, by YOUR OWN REASONING, 50 gun stores in all of Japan is EXCEPTIONALLY LOW. NOT "normal" as you dishonestly tried to "prove" by using disingenuous manipulation of statistics.

Alternately, if 50 gun stores for a country the size of Utah doesn't seem odd, then a NORMAL amount of gun stores that we should find in Utah, using YOUR OWN REASONING, would be ONE.

Spending the money on machine guns? ;)

As I expected, your scope of understanding is rather narrow, and you've never been able to experience a country where both its laws and its people don't rely on guns to feel safe and secure.

It's quite pleasant.
Pffft. Clearly, you typed out this post with a government official holding a gun to your head. Your civil liberties have been seriously compromised. The obvious solution is to go out and buy some guns. Go on... scoot!

Ha. Implying what you're doing is research.

Hey guys, I've never been out of the country and I don't know anything about Spain, but I just googled a bunch of shit on the internets and they say there's like a bunch places selling guns, so I'm just going to assume Spain has a comparable gun culture as that of the US. Don't listen to the dude who actually lives there who's telling me otherwise, I "researched" it.
The sad part is that he actually believes this and considers it valid.

Except you miss the point where I also based my comments on someone who lived in Spain,
"This random guy on the interwebz said so!"... "RESEARCH"...

I feel sorry for people who have to depend on harsh language at best to defend themselves.
His chances are likely (depending upon where he lives) far, far better than yours at not being senselessly murdered in cold blood. I mean, have you ever actually used your guns in self-defence?
 
NEW PAGE!


So, in other words, you DON'T have any numbers showing how frequently this occurs. Color me surprised. Until you provide data, you can't make any statement and treat it as fact.

Wow I gave you numerous reports and you just handwaved it off. That's really sad that you will defend the massive abuses of the Japanese legal system...because somehow you think disproving it/defending it is a victory for you. So two different scholarly works and two articles from the BBC and one from the NY Times, don't count as valid sources.


[LOL!!! First, you totally attempt to bullshit everybody by comparing land size, of all things, and then you have the gall to post a link/source in a piss-poor attempt to make your statement appear more legitimate. You are now being intentionally disingenuous. And you know it. Did you HONESTLY think that this was an HONEST and valid comparison to make? REALLY? I really want to know what process went on in your mind that led you to choosing LAND AREA, out of ALL the potential comparisons that you could have chosen from, as your basis of comparison. Everyone here knows the answer already, but it would be interesting to hear to try to spin your way out of this one. Everybody here knows that you are bullshitting. Everybody here knows that a proper comparison would be one of population density. Yes, Japan and Utah are physically the same size, but Japan has 45X more people. Thus, using this PROPER and HONEST comparison, you get the following:

Don't get pissed at me that I provided evidence and you haven't. Look I can't help it that I was right and you weren't about it.

If 50 gun stores for a country the size of Utah doesn't seem odd, then it wouldn't be considered unusual if Japan had 2250 gun stores. Therefore, by YOUR OWN REASONING, 50 gun stores in all of Japan is EXCEPTIONALLY LOW. NOT "normal" as you dishonestly tried to "prove" by using disingenuous manipulation of statistics.
Unless you understand that guns are more highly controlled than in the UK. See knowing things about the law will help your argument.

Alternately, if 50 gun stores for a country the size of Utah doesn't seem odd, then a NORMAL amount of gun stores that we should find in Utah, using YOUR OWN REASONING, would be ONE.
The problem is that due to US law a gun store vs a FFL 01 is hard to distinguish.

Pffft. Clearly, you typed out this post with a government official holding a gun to your head. Your civil liberties have been seriously compromised. The obvious solution is to go out and buy some guns. Go on... scoot!
Look just because you don't care about your civil liberties and human rights doesn't me others cant.

The sad part is that he actually believes this and considers it valid.
It is valid, just because you get pissy at being wrong, does not make it wrong.

"This random guy on the interwebz said so!"... "RESEARCH"...
Sure random lol Well at least people realize how baseless your argument just was. lol

His chances are likely (depending upon where he lives) far, far better than yours at not being senselessly murdered in cold blood. I mean, have you ever actually used your guns in self-defence?
Haven't need to yet, but I'd rather have an option. I'll take that over being a victim any day of the week.
 
Its all there in the stats I posted

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_firearms.xls

In 2009 U.S had 3.34 homicides with firearms (per 100K) to UK's 0.074. Thats actually a multiple of 45x the UK rate. Sorry guys I was too generous with my first post!

That isn't homicide overall, correct?

The actual homicide rate is 4.2 and the US is 1.2. So the 45X is just a made up state to make the US sound far more dangerous than it really is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

I'm not even bringing up the fact that most crime Statistics in the UK are done separately by region, England, Scotland, Wales, and NI are usually broken up and not counted as a whole.

So nice try! lol
 
That isn't homicide overall, correct?

Very perceptive of you Manos. This is a thread debating gun control afterall
The actual homicide rate is 4.2 and the US is 1.2. So the 45X is just a made up state to make the US sound far more dangerous than it really is.

No its not its acknowledging - in a thread about gun control - you are 45x more likely to be murdered with a firearm in the U.S (which has considerably laxer gun control laws) than in the U.K (which has strict gun laws)
I'm not even bringing up the fact that most crime Statistics in the UK are done separately by region, England, Scotland, Wales, and NI are usually broken up and not counted as a whole.

Yes. You could try another deflective argument, but thats not applicable here. Feel free to compare it to any European country you like
So nice try! lol

Ahh. Sneering condescension. you're getting desperate manos. Try again please
 
Very perceptive of you Manos. This is a thread debating gun control afterall
Except you keep trying to treat guns as the only way a person can be murdered, when it's not the case. Shall we compare poisoning and explosive deaths?


No its not its acknowledging - in a thread about gun control - you are 45x more likely to be murdered with a firearm in the U.S (which has considerably laxer gun control laws) than in the U.K (which has strict gun laws)
The UK has gun bans on handguns and numerous other guns, stop trying to ignore that basic fact. Comparing one tool in one nation to another and NOT the overall homicide rate is just you trying to create a false impression that does not statistically hold up when you look at the overall (and for the UK incomplete most of the time) homicide rates.


Yes. You could try another deflective argument, but thats not applicable here. Feel free to compare it to any European country you like
It is when talking about homicide rate in the United Kingdom.

Ahh. Sneering condescension. you're getting desperate manos. Try again please
I'm not the one who misused used stats to create a false impression and got called out on it.
 
I'm not the one who misused used stats to create a false impression and got called out on it.

...

Also 50 gun stores for a country only the size of Arizona and Utah* doesn't seem that odd

You know nothing about Spain or Europe in general, do you? Size doesn't matter, since in Europe there is a much higher density of population. Utah has a population of 2,817,222 people and a density of 13.2/km², Arizona has a population of 6,482,505 people and a density of 22/km². On the other hand Spain has a population of 47.190.493 people and a density of 94/km²! Having 50 gun stores means nothing there!


There are 50 THOUSAND licensed gun dealers in the US.

Spain has roughly 1/6 the US population (1/7th at worst).

I can't believe you've stooped to dick measuring using population and the amount of land in the country.
 
Except you keep trying to treat guns as the only way a person can be murdered, when it's not the case. Shall we compare poisoning and explosive deaths?

No because we're discussing gun-related homicides in a thread about gun control. This isn't hard.

The UK has gun bans on handguns and numerous other guns

One of the rare times you are correct
I'm not the one who misused used stats to create a false impression and got called out on it.

Lol misused facts. Heres the post you quoted

Messypandas said:
In 2009 U.S had 3.34 homicides with firearms (per 100K)

What part of that was beyond your comprehension Manos? You can make a better strawman than this
 
I know all this about the regs. As I explained Funky Papa has mentioned this before in GAF threads.

We discussed the regs and the pysch and other requirements. That said its nice you know the regs now.

Also you do know that a defensive use of a gun does not require it to be fired.
HAHAHA!!! He STILL won't admit that he's wrong even when a SPANIARD completely contradicts him with actual FACTS! Humor us, Manos. Do you still think that you are right, or will you admit that you're wrong. Do you not realize that the more that you insist that you're in the right despite overwhelming evidence against you, the less people take you seriously? You lose more and more credibility with each successive post...

Wow I gave you numerous reports and you just handwaved it off. That's really sad that you will defend the massive abuses of the Japanese legal system...because somehow you think disproving it/defending it is a victory for you. So two different scholarly works and two articles from the BBC and one from the NY Times, don't count as valid sources.
Jeez, Manos, would it kill you to answer the question? And yet again, I have to contend with your inadequate reading comprehension skills. It would be SO much easier if you could understand what the adults are talking about here.

READ MY LIPS: I did NOT question the validity of your sources. I did NOT say that this detention system was acceptable. In FACT, I've stated the opposite. What I DID ask for was for some STATS. Specifically, how many of the 128,000,000 people of Japan were subjected to this heinous treatment? NONE of your sources mention this. YOU apparently do NOT want to answer this. WHY is that, I wonder? Maybe it's because you realize that this terrible detention practice is rare and sporadic, conducted by the morally corrupt fringes of the authorities, not unlike other types of civil liberty abuses conducted by EVERY other police force in EVERY other country in the world (yes, including Canada). Can you give me that number, Manos? YOU are the one who claims that this is a HUGE problem in Japan. I agree that it IS a problem, but it's certainly NOT as widespread as you claim it is. So, since YOU are claiming that this is a HUGE problem, then SHOW THE NUMBERS. "Until you provide data, you can't make any statement and treat it as fact." Those are YOUR OWN words, Manos. From THIS thread. SHOW THE NUMBERS.

Don't get pissed at me that I provided evidence and you haven't. Look I can't help it that I was right and you weren't about it.
You have provided ZERO evidence with regards to how frequent and widespread this practice is. "Until you provide data, you can't make any statement and treat it as fact." Those are YOUR OWN words, Manos. From THIS thread. SHOW THE NUMBERS.

Unless you understand that guns are more highly controlled than in the UK. See knowing things about the law will help your argument.
Wha...? The... UK? We're talking about Utah and Japan. Not the UK. But seeing as both words start with a "U", I can understand your confusion. Plus, nice dodge about bullshitting everyone by trying to pull a fast one on everybody by posting useless stats about land area. I can see why you'd want to avoid explaining that one, just like you tried to avoid adequately explaining how you tried to delete one of your posts after somebody else mocked it for the Tea Party rhetoric that it is.

Look just because you don't care about your civil liberties and human rights doesn't me others cant.
HAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Well, whaddaya know? I'm oppressed! I'll bite. What specifically about Canadian law do you find offensive?
 
HAHAHA!!! He STILL won't admit that he's wrong even when a SPANIARD completely contradicts him with actual FACTS! Humor us, Manos. Do you still think that you are right, or will you admit that you're wrong. Do you not realize that the more that you insist that you're in the right despite overwhelming evidence against you, the less people take you seriously? You lose more and more credibility with each successive post..
Look don't get so bent out of shape that I was right and provided evidence and you ignored when I even pointed out that poster who had discussed it.

Jeez, Manos, would it kill you to answer the question?
Would it kill you to answer the question and stop handwaving the abuses in the Japanese legal system and understand that beyond the detention system there are lots of other issues as mentioned in the reports.

Wha...? The... UK? We're talking about Utah and Japan. Not the UK. But seeing as both words start with a "U", I can understand your confusion. Plus, nice dodge about bullshitting everyone by trying to pull a fast one on everybody by posting useless stats about land area. I can see why you'd want to avoid explaining that one,
Look once again don't get pissed that I posted facts and citations and you don't.

just like you tried to avoid adequately explaining how you tried to delete one of your posts after somebody else mocked it for the Tea Party rhetoric that it is.
Once again quit with your lies. I never tried to delete my posts, I moved them a few posts down and preserved them and had fun with the tag link. I said that as soon as someone brought it up. Really man this isn't something you're going to win somehow.
 
Sure random lol Well at least people realize how baseless your argument just was. lol
So when another poster, from Spain, tells you that gun control laws are strict in Spain, you tell him that they aren't. Correct? Then you tell everybody here in the thread that you talked with another guy from Spain, a GAF poster named "Funky Papa". And then you tell us that Funky Papa says the opposite. Funky Papa said that the gun control laws in Spain are lax, according to your account. You then go on to reference Funky Papa several times as proof that Spain's gun laws are lax. Seeing as Funky Papa is a competitive shooter, then maybe we should listen to what he has to say, shall we?

Here is Funky Papa in post #204 from the thread titled Reuters: "Most Americans back gun lobby, right to use deadly force"
European gun owner here.

The thing that irks me about this whole thing is that you don't need to have them banned. Actually, from my experience only a tiny minority of Americans would like to end gun ownership in any shape or form.

Gun crime in my country is by all means a tiny issue, in no small part because arms are so incredibly controlled that it would be nigh impossible for gangs to obtain them through straw purchases and shady dealers, which are the main sources of illegal weapons in America.

Here's a quick step by step guide of everything you need to do in my neck of the woods in order to obtain a gun:

  1. First, you have to undergo some physical and mental tests, paid out of your pocket (around €40). They are extremely basic, but enough to deter the craziest elements (read: a total psycho) from getting a gun.
  2. Second, you need to fill an official form and obtain your police records in order to demonstrate that you are not a felon.
  3. After that you pay a small fee to your local shooting federation (I think mine was about €50). This is an important step. After that you'll have to attend to several theoretical and practical classes. During two days you will learn everything you need to know about gun safety and laws. After that you'll be taken to the local range and shoot for three days. Teachers (and maybe the police, as sometimes they drop by to check on everybody) will keep tabs on you; in order to obtain a license you'll need to pass a final practical test and demonstrate that you are a responsible shooter.
  4. Now you have your license. But you can't have your gun. National law stipulates that you need to keep your gun in an homologated safe at all times, so you have to purchase one.
  5. Now you can buy a gun. You can either visit a gun store or purchase it from another gun owner. It should be noted that there is no such thing as over the counter gun purchases. After you pay for it the shop or individual in possession of said gun will send it to the police, that will inspect it and check its serial numbers.
  6. Once it's been inspected police will contact you. You will have to produce a copy of your safe's documentation (showing that you own an actual, proper safe) and then the gun will be registered at your name.
  7. Congratulations: you are now a freshly registered gun owner... but things won't stop here. Every few years you will have to visit your local police station with your guns in order to get them checked. This way police will know that you still own every arm registered at your name, making sure that you are not a straw seller, getting guns by legit means only to sell them to criminals.

It sounds like a lengthy and complex process and damn well it is, but this way:

a) Anybody who really wants a gun gets to own one.
b) Irresponsible buyers are discouraged; they simply don't have the patience to deal with all the red tape, not to mention safety classes.
c) It is IMPOSSIBLE to sell your guns to criminals without the police noticing it.

Now, there are many idiotic things in our gun legislation that make absolutely no fucking sense, such as silly caliber regulations and the like, but I think that this is the best possible approach to gun control. Of course, I know many Americans would freak the fuck out at some of those points, but I know it's a fair compromise and not that different from the requirements of owning a car, which also comes with significant responsibilities.
So THAT'S what Funky Papa REALLY said. Why would Manos tell us that Funky Papa said the complete opposite? He was SO sure! He must have misremembered. Unless...


Manos: Funky Papa said that gun controls are lax in Spain.

Funky Papa: "Arms are so incredibly controlled"



I'm sorry, but this is disgusting. Shame...
 
So when another poster, from Spain, tells you that gun control laws are strict in Spain, you tell him that they aren't. Correct? Then you tell everybody here in the thread that you talked with another guy from Spain, a GAF poster named "Funky Papa". And then you tell us that Funky Papa says the opposite. Funky Papa said that the gun control laws in Spain are lax, according to your account. You then go on to reference Funky Papa several times as proof that Spain's gun laws are lax. Seeing as Funky Papa is a competitive shooter, then maybe we should listen to what he has to say, shall we?

Here is Funky Papa in post #204 from the thread titled Reuters: "Most Americans back gun lobby, right to use deadly force"

So THAT'S what Funky Papa REALLY said. Why would Manos tell us that Funky Papa said the complete opposite? He was SO sure! He must have misremembered. Unless...


Manos: Funky Papa said that gun controls are lax in Spain.

Funky Papa: "Arms are so incredibly controlled"

Where did I say it was lax? LOL It's lax compared to the UK where Handguns are banned. I mean of course European laws are more OTT than US ones in regards to ones, but compared to each some are more lax than the other.

Man you spent a whole lot of time to prove what I just said. Thanks it will be easier to find the quote if I want to use it later! He even's mentions that there are gun stories you forgot to bold it!

Thanks, but you do need to quit lying so much. lol

I'm sorry, but this is disgusting. Shame...
Only your excuses and handwaving of Japanese legal abuses.
 
Where did I say it was lax? LOL It's lax compared to the UK where Handguns are banned.

Man you spent a whole lot of time to prove what I just said. Thanks it will be easier to find the quote if I want to use it later!

Thanks, but you do need to quit lying so much. lol
LOL!!! Mitt Romney called... he wants you on his campaign team! LOL!!!
 
Yes, Manos. I'M the liar...
Finally you admit it!

LOL!!! Mitt Romney called... he wants you on his campaign team! LOL!!!
Are you sure it wasn't calling you, because you half-truths, using cooked data, handwaving of authority reports, and mischaracterizing quotes and statements are really hallmarks of the Romney campaign. Besides since you're out of the US he can save money outsourcing the work to you.
 
Originally Posted by Manos: The Hans of Fate: View Post
I'm not the one who misused used stats to create a false impression and got called out on it.
...

Originally Posted by Manos: The Hans of Fate: View Post
Also 50 gun stores for a country only the size of Arizona and Utah* doesn't seem that odd
Originally Posted by Metal B: View Post
You know nothing about Spain or Europe in general, do you? Size doesn't matter, since in Europe there is a much higher density of population. Utah has a population of 2,817,222 people and a density of 13.2/km², Arizona has a population of 6,482,505 people and a density of 22/km². On the other hand Spain has a population of 47.190.493 people and a density of 94/km²! Having 50 gun stores means nothing there!

Originally Posted by GaimeGuy: View Post
There are 50 THOUSAND licensed gun dealers in the US.

Spain has roughly 1/6 the US population (1/7th at worst).

I can't believe you've stooped to dick measuring using population and the amount of land in the country.
AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! Good BURN, ghst! Manos caught in ANOTHER LIE! When it rains, it POURS! LOL!!!
 
AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! Good BURN, ghst! Manos caught in ANOTHER LIE! When it rains, it POURS! LOL!!!

What lie are you talking about? Why are continuing to make things up?

I compared geographic size, I never said population. lol Dude you really need to quit lying all you do is embarrass yourself.

You also ignored as said earier that a gun storefront vs just an FFL 01 holder (as Gamieguy knows little to nothing on actual gun laws), doesn't proof anything since because of differences in the law you can't compare the FFL holder number as a storefront.

Come on Mitt, quit with the bull.
 
I'll never understand why someone would be opposed to my right to defend my home. My life. My family. Shit, I'm not even talking about carrying. But to me owning a firearm is a responsibility not to be taken lightly. I thought about it for a long time. Spoke to people both for and against it and weighed my options and the risks involved.

People on both sides love to spout stats but at the end of the day we cherrypick the ones we want to reinforce our predetermined position.

There are risks involved in owning a gun. There's risk involved in anything in life but what really blows my mind is that cultural relativism that GAF normally has goes right out the window when the issue of the 2nd Amendment in in the States is discussed. Suddenly every other nation is "civilized" and perfect and everyone makes snide jabs about how terrible America is. And then to point the finger to the millions upon millions of legal, responsible gun owners that handle their firearms with care every day? Fuck that.

I'm pretty liberal. I own guns. I have a whole bunch of ammo, too. I can't be responsible for every maniac, pervert and idiot so I'm only responsible for myself. The notion that my 12ga or my assault rifle will magically pick itself up and blow someones head off is laughable.

I feel that we need to enforce the laws we already have and cut out the recidivism rate that many criminals seem to have. And address the social and financial reasons why people seem to feel the need to take from someone else even by force. Feels like almost every article the perp did time but was paroled and yet did it again. Then Mammoth Jones should give up his right to self defense in his home because Billy Bonehead ripped off a convenience store? Not for nothing but criminals do no obey laws. He'd still have a gun. I wouldn't. There are more reasons for the disparity of violence in the US compared to other nations.

I don't know why Manos catches shit on this subject. Or the circle-jerk pile-on that occurs during firearm debates. My personal view is if you don't want to own a gun don't own a gun. Problem solved. I hope you never ever need it. I'd never wish violence on anyone. Go live in Chicago where guns are banned and you should be completely safe, right? After all, guns are the problem!

For me? I'd rather have it ready and never ever need it than in one random twist of fate need it and never have it.

In terms of carrying in a University? If they're adults and allowed in the State then I see no reason to limit it there. Personally I think it'd be one hell of a deterrent to any emo-rage filled loser that has delusions of being worshipped and being remembered on the News. I say fuck it. Give it a try. If the death rates suddenly skyrocket as they have in all the carry states (lol) then I'll admit I was wrong.

But banning students from carrying didn't stop all the other school shootings that occured. Last time I checked just about all of those were gun free zones. Now, perhaps the answer isn't "moar guns!". Fair enough. Perhaps the focus should be on better mental health services for loner types in university and reducing the societal stigma of seeking mental health.

But "Ban all teh bad things because guns are all bad all of them always!" just doesn't vibe with me. I'm not a pacifist.
484013_452227258144250_531668232_n.jpg
 
My personal view is if you don't want to own a gun don't own a gun. Problem solved.
Problem solved? So all those people in that Colorado theater who chose not to own a gun... problem solved? On another note, I'd definitely be more open to people owning guns on the condition that it stays on their property. That's one of the best ideas anyone has come up with here.

What lie are you talking about? Why are continuing to make things up?
YOU said "I'm not the one who misused stats to create a false impression and got called out on it." You purposely misused land area stats to create a false impression that Utah and Japan were the same "size". YOU know it. I know it. EVERYbody knows it. I guess that, technically, you're not a liar by doing this. Technically, you're a HYPOCRITE.

I compared geographic size, I never said population. lol Dude you really need to quit lying all you do is embarrass yourself.
HAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! Oh, god, you are priceless! Duuuuhhhhh... Ma...nos... tell trooth. Me beleev him. He no lie. Him trust... wurthee... just like Mitt Romney. Baaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnn... Please... don't stop!

You also ignored as said earier that a gun storefront vs just an FFL 01 holder (as Gamieguy knows little to nothing on actual gun laws), doesn't proof anything since because of differences in the law you can't compare the FFL holder number as a storefront.
Ignoring and not giving a shit are two different things.

Come on Mitt, quit with the bull.
george-castanza-jerk_store.jpg
 
It never ceases to amaze me how people who post this image don't understand what it's implying. It's basically saying that getting rid of gun laws would be great. More gun laws wouldn't help because criminals would just break the gun laws anyway, so why have gun laws? Hey, criminals always break the law anyway, so why have laws. Gene Wilder is basically saying that gun laws are like general laws in that criminals just break them anyway. We might as well just get rid of all the laws. Gene is equating the two. Makes sense, right? Getting rid of the gun laws = good. Therefore, getting rid of general laws = good. What do you think would really happen if there were no laws? This is just about one of the worst analogies I've ever seen...
 
Problem solved? So all those people in that Colorado theater who chose not to own a gun... problem solved? On another note, I'd definitely be more open to people owning guns on the condition that it stays on their property. That's one of the best ideas anyone has come up with here.

No you wouldn't. Because the moment some criminal disobeys the law (that have this pesky habit of doing that) and takes it out and does something evil with it we'll be right back here having this same debate. It'll just be in the context of removing guns from homes.

As far as Colorado Theatre last time I checked that theatre was a gun-free zone. That didn't stop him from carrying a bunch of shit one is not allowed to carry, did it? There's also a law that you can't just gun people down. Funny how he seemed to completely ignore that one too....

What do you think may have made more of a difference? If all guns were illegal to carry there? They already were. Or maybe if mental health services didn't have their hands tied in BS red tape to report an unstable person? One of the shrinks knew that dude was off his rocker and couldn't get that communicated enough to get him disarmed. I think that's more of a factor than "ban all the guns that were already banned."

I'm all for firearms but not for the mentally unbalanced. Not when there's a known concern for someone like that. But a law abiding citizen with no mental instability that carries for protection? I can't oppose that.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how people who post this image don't understand what it's implying. It's basically saying that getting rid of gun laws would be great. More gun laws wouldn't help because criminals would just break the gun laws anyway, so why have gun laws? Hey, criminals always break the law anyway, so why have laws. Gene Wilder is basically saying that gun laws are like general laws in that criminals just break them anyway. We might as well just get rid of all the laws. Gene is equating the two. Makes sense, right? Getting rid of the gun laws = good. Therefore, getting rid of general laws = good. What do you think would really happen if there were no laws? This is just about one of the worst analogies I've ever seen...


The point is: Criminals don't tend to follow laws so people should have the right to defend themselves in those unfortunate situations.

The point is not: Criminals don't tend to follow laws so we just shouldn't have any laws anywhere ever for anything.
 
I'll never understand why someone would be opposed to my right to defend my home. My life. My family. Shit, I'm not even talking about carrying. But to me owning a firearm is a responsibility not to be taken lightly. I thought about it for a long time. Spoke to people both for and against it and weighed my options and the risks involved.

People on both sides love to spout stats but at the end of the day we cherrypick the ones we want to reinforce our predetermined position.

There are risks involved in owning a gun. There's risk involved in anything in life but what really blows my mind is that cultural relativism that GAF normally has goes right out the window when the issue of the 2nd Amendment in in the States is discussed. Suddenly every other nation is "civilized" and perfect and everyone makes snide jabs about how terrible America is. And then to point the finger to the millions upon millions of legal, responsible gun owners that handle their firearms with care every day? Fuck that.

I'm pretty liberal. I own guns. I have a whole bunch of ammo, too. I can't be responsible for every maniac, pervert and idiot so I'm only responsible for myself. The notion that my 12ga or my assault rifle will magically pick itself up and blow someones head off is laughable.

I feel that we need to enforce the laws we already have and cut out the recidivism rate that many criminals seem to have. And address the social and financial reasons why people seem to feel the need to take from someone else even by force. Feels like almost every article the perp did time but was paroled and yet did it again. Then Mammoth Jones should give up his right to self defense in his home because Billy Bonehead ripped off a convenience store? Not for nothing but criminals do no obey laws. He'd still have a gun. I wouldn't. There are more reasons for the disparity of violence in the US compared to other nations.

I don't know why Manos catches shit on this subject. Or the circle-jerk pile-on that occurs during firearm debates. My personal view is if you don't want to own a gun don't own a gun. Problem solved. I hope you never ever need it. I'd never wish violence on anyone. Go live in Chicago where guns are banned and you should be completely safe, right? After all, guns are the problem!

For me? I'd rather have it ready and never ever need it than in one random twist of fate need it and never have it.

In terms of carrying in a University? If they're adults and allowed in the State then I see no reason to limit it there. Personally I think it'd be one hell of a deterrent to any emo-rage filled loser that has delusions of being worshipped and being remembered on the News. I say fuck it. Give it a try. If the death rates suddenly skyrocket as they have in all the carry states (lol) then I'll admit I was wrong.

But banning students from carrying didn't stop all the other school shootings that occurs. Last time I checked those were gun free zones.
484013_452227258144250_531668232_n.jpg

If you lose a lighter or a pen or some other common household item, how hard do you think it would be for you to find one from somewhere else? I'm talking anywhere, be it a friend's house, a shop, a shady hideout, anywhere. Not that hard. And it's not because they're legal or illegal, but because they're so common.

That's the same thing with guns. Anyone can obtain one in America rather easily. It's much harder to obtain a car license than it is to obtain a gun permit, and most states have "shall issue" laws which make the process more streamlined and accessible than the DMV. Not to mention, in most states, private transfers of guns that are not going to be carried are completely unregulated.

Let's just say I was a convicted felon, and I have gone back into a life of crime. Because I have a record, I can not buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. In Minnesota, someone I know can go into a store and buy a gun for me, though. It doesn't have to be registered, and no permit or registration of the individual is necessary, either. Nor is any record of who bought what gun. Even pawn shops can buy and sell firearms. In private, the person who buys the gun sells me the gun. This may technically be illegal because I'm not supposed to own a gun, but it is done in private, so you're protected by the 4th amendment from having it found out. And depending on the wording of the laws about selling guns (for intance, if they discuss the transactions in general or the rules regulating licensed distributors, that could affect the applicability), that person may not have even committed a crime by selling it to me. Regardless, they're protected from having it found out by the system.

I now have a gun. Obviously, I'm not going to try to get a carry permit since I'm a felon and I wouldn't be able to get one, and I'd likely incriminate myself. But what's going to stop me from concealing and carrying it anyways? Again, I'm protected by the 4th amendment. You can't find out i'm carrying a gun illegally if I don't make it known or get caught doing something else.

So now that I have a gun, I begin using it during my robberies to ensure compliance by other people.

Eventually I get caught during a robbery, and this gets written off as a "bad guy" using guns, so the system is fine. After all, I'm not a good guy, and that invalidates any criticisms about how society helped enable me to become equipped thorugh lax gun control. Especially since I broke the law anyways by becoming equipped.



Do you see why "It doesn't matter if you outlaw guns, because then only the criminals will have them!" is a stupid idea?

Under current laws, you just need to know someone who can own a gun, someone who doesn't keep their guns locked up, somewhere a gun is stored, and you can obtian a gun, regardless of whether or not you should have one. And it's quite easy to find one. And you can hide the fact that you have a gun.

If there were stricter regulations on gun ownership, registration, transfers, distribution, it would reduce gun crime.
 
I'll never understand why someone would be opposed to my right to defend my home. My life. My family. Shit, I'm not even talking about carrying. But to me owning a firearm is a responsibility not to be taken lightly. I thought about it for a long time. Spoke to people both for and against it and weighed my options and the risks involved.

People on both sides love to spout stats but at the end of the day we cherrypick the ones we want to reinforce our predetermined position.

There are risks involved in owning a gun. There's risk involved in anything in life but what really blows my mind is that cultural relativism that GAF normally has goes right out the window when the issue of the 2nd Amendment in in the States is discussed. Suddenly every other nation is "civilized" and perfect and everyone makes snide jabs about how terrible America is. And then to point the finger to the millions upon millions of legal, responsible gun owners that handle their firearms with care every day? Fuck that.

I'm pretty liberal. I own guns. I have a whole bunch of ammo, too. I can't be responsible for every maniac, pervert and idiot so I'm only responsible for myself. The notion that my 12ga or my assault rifle will magically pick itself up and blow someones head off is laughable.

I feel that we need to enforce the laws we already have and cut out the recidivism rate that many criminals seem to have. And address the social and financial reasons why people seem to feel the need to take from someone else even by force. Feels like almost every article the perp did time but was paroled and yet did it again. Then Mammoth Jones should give up his right to self defense in his home because Billy Bonehead ripped off a convenience store? Not for nothing but criminals do no obey laws. He'd still have a gun. I wouldn't. There are more reasons for the disparity of violence in the US compared to other nations.

I don't know why Manos catches shit on this subject. Or the circle-jerk pile-on that occurs during firearm debates. My personal view is if you don't want to own a gun don't own a gun. Problem solved. I hope you never ever need it. I'd never wish violence on anyone. Go live in Chicago where guns are banned and you should be completely safe, right? After all, guns are the problem!

For me? I'd rather have it ready and never ever need it than in one random twist of fate need it and never have it.

In terms of carrying in a University? If they're adults and allowed in the State then I see no reason to limit it there. Personally I think it'd be one hell of a deterrent to any emo-rage filled loser that has delusions of being worshipped and being remembered on the News. I say fuck it. Give it a try. If the death rates suddenly skyrocket as they have in all the carry states (lol) then I'll admit I was wrong.

But banning students from carrying didn't stop all the other school shootings that occured. Last time I checked just about all of those were gun free zones. Now, perhaps the answer isn't "moar guns!". Fair enough. Perhaps the focus should be on better mental health services for loner types in university and reducing the societal stigma of seeking mental health.

But "Ban all teh bad things because guns are all bad all of them always!" just doesn't vibe with me. I'm not a pacifist.
484013_452227258144250_531668232_n.jpg

Mammoth, i'm sorry but you're nearly as a bad as Manos with your crummy logic. You can't call yourself a liberal and say you don't give a shit about society's problem. That's a right wing position to take. Nor can you just write off 9 million people who live in Chicago with "lol don't live there". Not everyone can afford to live in an idyllic peaceful place. The US also has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Whether that is a good idea is a subject for another time, but you can't possibly believe the solution is to put more people in jail. Just trying to point out the holes in your thinking.
 
Mammoth, i'm sorry but you're nearly as a bad as Manos with your crummy logic. You can't call yourself a liberal and say you don't give a shit about society's problem. That's a right wing position to take. Nor can you just write off 9 million people who live in Chicago with "lol don't there". Not everyone can afford to live in an idyllic peaceful place. The US also has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Whether that is a good idea is a subject for another time, but you can't possibly believe the solution is to put more people in jail. Just trying to point out the holes in your thinking.
You can't be a liberal if you want to limit basic Constitutional rights.
 
The point is: Criminals don't tend to follow laws so people should have the right to defend themselves in those unfortunate situations.

The point is not: Criminals don't tend to follow laws so we just shouldn't have any laws anywhere ever for anything.

Recently two people were murdered in Chicago by a drive by shooting. How exactly will having a gun protect you there?
 
Recently two people were murdered in Chicago by a drive by shooting. How exactly will having a gun protect you there?
Are all killings in Chicago drive by shootings? No Of course sometimes nothing will change an outcome, but some chance is better than no chance. Also even in a drive by depending where people were would intervention could have stopped the attacks or caused them to break off quicker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom