-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Christie Golden!
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
Seems legit. Next stop: Making murder legal, because criminals don’t care, anyway.
Bit of a difference between keeping *guns* legal and making *killing sprees* legal, doncha think?
That logic is very flawed. Evil (bad) exist in this world. That has always been the case. It becomes a real problem when you take away the ability of the common man to defend himself against evil (bad) people. No one is saying that criminals should have weapons. Your flaw is that you see either gun owners as evil, or somehow the gun itself to be a animate object that controls the shooter. Neither is the case.
I can understand if you yourself don’t like firearms, and don’t wish to own them. I begin to have a problem when you try to intrude on my life, and tell me that I can’t, because you have a irrational understanding about firearms, and firearm owners.
The founding fathers, and the first congress of America understood how important it is for the people to own firearms for the safety of the country as a whole, by placing it Second, only after the freedom of speech.
Police are great. But they can’t protect you all day, and night. I personally live 30 minutes from the city. It takes about 20 minutes for a officer to get to my house. Our house has already had a car broken into, and a bike stolen so far. I have a two year old child in the house along with my wife. If anyone wants to invade my home it is up to us to defend ourselves. A criminal already doesn’t listen to the law when they break into a home, do you think they listen to what is illegal for him to own. We are all first responders in our own homes. Don’t be a victim. Because no law will protect you from the person who wants what you have. He a criminal breaks in iwth a knife, I want a gun, if he breaks in with a gun, and want a bigger gun with more ammo. I don’t want to face a home invader who has a 33 round mag, and my legal gun only has 7 rounds. On a closing point. If you read the FBI crime report then you understand that home invaders are almost all repeat offenders, and are the ones who are most likely to kill you.
Either you just replied under the wrong post or you are waaaaay overinterpreting my post.
Nope didn’t reply under the wrong post. I may be verbose about some issues, but that just comes from a long history of dealing with people that don’t get it unless you spell it out simple enough for a 3 year old to understand.
You made an irrational statement that luminary took care of in a much simpler way. If only I could be so poignant, and to the point as he. I went a little more in depth covering issues that normally come up with statements like your’s are made. I’m afraid you will always find my replies to be as long.
@Luminary:
Where did I talk about killing sprees?
@DaftGhosty:
Okay, then I guess you overinterpreted, which may in part be my responsibility.
First: You don’t even know my stance on guns and gun ownership, so please don’t jump to conclusions or you may start arguing in the completely false direction.
Second: Maybe I shouldn’t have used murder. Let’s replace it with something that doesn’t get related with guns, let’s say: Embezzlement. I know that’s a crime, too, but my point was not to say “guns = crime”. My point is: What the fuck does the behaviour of criminals have to do with the passing and the amending of laws? Of course they break the law. But if, in the process of making laws, you ask yourself “hmm, what good would that do, criminals won’t stick to it anyway”, then you can torpedo ANY law or regulation. What criminals think of the law doesn’t matter, they are criminals.
There are a bazillion reasons pro and contra private gun ownership and just as many reasons to change or keep the current way things are handled. But “Criminals don’t obey the law” is a completely invalid point.
I hope this gets my point across, if not I am willing to clarify more.
Adding here, because I was too slow:
I wasn’t attacking guns or private gun ownership, I was attacking the false reasoning of the picture.
As I was saying: There are a bazillion valid or at least seemingly valid arguments flying around the room for both sides. If we start filtering out the bullshit arguments like this one, maybe we’ll actually get somewhere in this whole discussion.
Ah then I did indeed grossly misinterpret, for that I am sorry. Thank you for explaining further.
I agree we can’t simply not pass laws because criminals wont follow them. But the crux of my argument for the image above is simply this: If the law that is being passed serves no purpose, then it doesn’t need to be a law. Yes murder should be illegal. Owning an AR-15 shouldn’t be, if you are mentally stable, and don’t have a past history of violent crime (and the history of violent crime backs up that more then 90% of violent crimes are by people who can’t legally own guns). That is where the law helps, and doesn’t hinder with the NIC check system.
The problem with the current gun laws that are running their way through congress is that they are of the latter, not the former. Banning how a gun looks, or the amount of ammo it holds is attacking the tool, which isn’t the problem. The laws aren’t saying it is illegal to murder people, as we have those laws already. The laws that are trying to be passed are telling 90 to 100 million Americans that the guns they own are evil. That isn’t a solution. That is a congress women’s pet life project. That isn’t a law that will in any way lower crime. It didn’t work under Clinton, and the crime reports from the FBI don’t lie. They are attacking a fire arm that is rarely ever used to commit murder. It makes no sense if they really care about people being murdered, and not about pet projects, then why are they chasing life long pet projects that don’t work, or address the real issues?
No problem. I’m glad I could clear that up.
About the current course of the american government’s current course in gun legislation I’m afraid I know too little, because I’m not from the US – and with our own federal elections coming up this fall I have a lot of local politics to get seriously worked up about ;). But I appreciate every input.
Apparently, willingness to break a law automatically grants one the firearms and ammunition of choice.
You’re right, after all, making marijuana and cocaine illegal automatically make them disappear forever from the streets.
would be more logical if shooters didn’t -become- criminals -until- their shooting sprees
You are very incorrect in your statement. Over 90% of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Meaning in almost every case they can not own a firearm legally. Less then 2% of crimes are committed with legal firearms. Less then 1% of those firearms are rifles. Which is what is under attack right now. These are the FBI stats.
In short. Opinion are not facts. So, sorry your logic is flawed. If you want to really use logic, please study up first with the facts on the subject, and then try to apply logic. To apply logic with only opinions as your only source of information just make you look like a fool.
cool story bro but ‘shooting spree’ covers a much smaller area than ‘violent crime’ so look up the stats for how many multi victim school or work or post office shootings were done by people with a previous history of gun violence instead of inflating the initial focus of the statement just to fit facts you like
sure makes you feel good about yourself dont it but next time you try to impersonate an intellectual maybe dont use the word ‘logic’ so much against the straw man youre arguing with
Fact sure we can look at those. There has been about 80 or so “spree shootings” in America since about the 1860’s that aren’t workplace or school shootings that total about 523 dead, in the 150 some odd years of keeping records. There has been around 17 school shootings with about 138 dead in the same time, not counting the Bath Township school deaths (44) as it was done with explosives not guns. There has been about 20 workplace shootings with 138 dead that doesn’t fall under the first category. I may have missed a few that were counted as racist killings, so sorry.
The total is under 1000 dead in 150 years though. Last year alone there were over 10,000 murders. So you are very right. “Spree shootings” do cover a smaller field. None of the spree shootings would have been stopped by any law that came after either. So I’m having a hard time understanding your point, other than spree shootings don’t happen very often, as you point out, and only take up a very small number of people killed in the country each year from criminals who don’t follow the law either.
As for your final comment. My use of the word “Logic” has nothing to do with me trying to “impersonate an intellectual” haha. As if. If you go back and reread, and use some reading comprehension, you will know I was making a point to the anon (poster) above that he was not using “logic” because his statement in no way makes sense in the face of actual facts. “Logic” only works when you use facts, not opinions.
As for “feel good about yourself” Sir or ma’am, I am an 35 year old man who has a job, a wife, and a child to take care of at home. I don’t come online to make myself feel good. I’ve been visiting this site since 2007, and don’t post unless I feel there is gross incorrect information, unless it isn’t a troll post from casemod, about subject matter that interests me. I get my enjoyment in life outside this computer screen. I come here for funny or interesting pictures. Sometimes that get interrupted by people who are ignorant of facts.
thanks for conceding but dude nobody asked for your life story nobody gives a fuck about your personal stats theyve got nothing to do with the argument at hand except to buck up your own sense of self worth
maybe you should use your outside enjoyment and get some nice fresh air before you pop a skull cork
Haha I love little dumb trolls like you. =) You give me a great laugh. It’s either that or your so dense that you can’t handle real information, that doesn’t allow you to emo rage, without ignoring what was said.
Everything I have posted has been pertinent to either the image above, or to the post in which I was replying, even if you don’t have the reading and comprehension skills to understand that.
Have a good day anon, and don’t pop a cork yourself =)
By announcing a move to restrict something immediately causes people to go and buy out of fear they will not be able to in the future. They may not have even had an idea about buying a firearm before hand, but the media fans the flames and now gun sales are at record pace. Some gun companies have a back-order of over a million units. LA had a “gun buyback” event a number of weeks ago. I think over the weekend they collected maybe around 600 guns. At a local firearm dealer, they sold roughly 1200 in just over a week. In the end, the nation will be far more armed than we were before the proverbial shit hit the fan. I am pro-gun, but sure as hell against an idiot-with-a-gun. I’m afraid the ratio of idiots to responsibles could be going in the wrong direction since the rush to arm began. My state may not be as effected if at all by the proposed federal enactments, as California already has the most restriction on firearms. AAnnnywho, still rocking my Walther for my firearms training course and just put an order in for a Glock 17 🙂 Bummer I sold my M1A and Socom a couple years back, they are a hot item right now.
The laws are not only to criminalise criminals getting guns, but other people selling guns to the criminals. It’s not difficult, dude.
90% of gun crimes committed are done so with guns obtained from relatives, friends or another criminal. 1.7% of which come from gun shows (lol gun show loop). The 10% that legally attained them had to have done so through FFL dealers who are required to do background checks already that, among other things, make sure you have no criminal background, are a resident of the U.S., have not been dishonorably discharged, are not on illegal substances, and not deemed mentally unstable, etc.
Check it out if you like, I have personally filled one out at least ten times.
www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
Let’s not forget we, unlike many other nations, are not homogeneous, we have a large gang culture in this country as well that affects our homicide rate. Not to mention far more homicides are committed with other objects than guns as well, knives, blunt instruments and even fists. There were more people beat to death with bare hands than shot with rifles last year.
Last but not least legislation attacks “assault weapons” that are used in less than 2% of all gun crimes. It’s not just unconstitutional legislation, it’s outright absurd.
OK one more: gun murders are at their lowest since 1981, yet gun ownership is at it’s highest.
You’re right. It’s not difficult, dude.
Unfortunately simply making laws does not stop criminals. All it takes is to look at drugs in america to understand that. The federal government has spent over 2.5 Trillion in fighting drugs in America and still to this day criminals walk the streets, and sell crack, and anyone can find the drugs they want on the streets.
Gun owners do not mind common sense laws that make it hard to impossible for criminals, and mentally ill people to buy fire arms. If you know the FBI statistics then you know 98% of fire arms used in violent crimes are stolen. No laws would have prevented the theft of the fire arms. The law didn’t stop the criminal from breaking into the house, and the law didn’t stop them from selling the firearms on the streets, and the laws didn’t stop the murder from using the gun. The only thing that has ever stopped the crime has been the home owner with a gun, or a police officer.
“No laws would have prevented the theft of the fire arms.”
That’s only true because of the level of gun proliferation in the US. There are plenty of countries where you can’t just go steal a gun… you can’t find them in random houses and places to buy them are few and far between, and with over-the-top security.
You might want to look at what’s happening in Great Britain then. It’s an Island, which SHOULD make it harder to smuggle guns in. Yet since the Public has been banned from possessing Handguns, Gun Violence has soured. The Police, which for Historical Reasons has been virtually unarmed, are now starting to carry Sidearms because Great Britain has the highest Rate of Violent Crime in the EU, four times that of the United States.
This is a pretty good watch. We know the law. Look deeper into enforcement, and where.
I love how this kind of bullshit always ignores the fact that right up to the a second before they start the shooting spree, the nutjobs that mass murder ARE law-abiding citizens. But please, do carry on with straw arguments and false equivalencies, since there are no genuinely rational arguments against stricter gun laws.
The only rational argument needed is “shall not be infringed.”
Actually that’s not really the Case. The Nutjob that did the Shootings at Sandy Hook was to the point where his Mother was AGAIN trying to get him Committed. The Mental Case who shot up the Aurora Theater scared the Whey out of the University Psychologist who was seeing him, but didn’t report him due to “Legal Concerns” (ie HER getting Sued by HIM). The Columbine Shooters, both on the Mental Health Radar. The Virgina Tech Assailant, Same thing. We don’t have a GUN Problem, we have a MENTAL HEALTH CARE Problem. (Yes I know the Names of all those Nut Cases, but until their Victims are Remembered, I choose not to Remember THEM.)
I WILL RIP YOUR BUTTHOLES
Well, did my Willy Wonka Meme start a fight?