You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.
#61. Posted:
002
  • Gold Member
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Axl wrote
Mr_Robot wrote
Axl wrote I think that everyone has the right to own a firearm unless they breach the requirements for it but the other thing that comes in is the fact that some people may buy a firearm over websites like Craigslist because they want to make some money.


You said "Unless they breach the requirements" . What would you say should be the requirements for owning one?

I personally there should be little if any at all. The "requirements" is how the goverment is going to start disarming the public. By adding requirements, they are making it harder and harder to legally obtain one. Some states are even going as far to not let medical marijuana patients own a gun


Well, do you want someone with a mental illness to hold a firearm?


As long as they are accompanied by someone who is mentally stable, I see no issues.


You mean like Chris Kyle and veterans with PTSD?

But yes, I know that the numbers are going to be minuscule. Instead of saying, "I see no issues" it would have been more accurate if you had said, "I accept the issues but don't think they warrant a ban on mentally unstable people owning guns."

And that's fine.


I don't know him, therefore I can't comment on if he's mentally stable or not. Also, I think you would need to classify the different mental illnesses. PTSD is FAR different from schizophrenia. There are none, no, zip, zero nada issues with a mentally stable person allowing a mentally unstable person to handle a firearm. The mentally stable person should have enough common sense to make sure it's unloaded and on safe. At that point it's nothing more than a glorified baseball bat.


I'm surprised that I have to explain who Chris Kyle is to you but alright.
Chris Kyle is the sniper with the most confirmed kills in US military history. He returned after 3 tours (I think it was 3) to help veterans with PTSD work through their issues. Part of this involved going to a shooting range with them. However, while he was at a shooting range one of the veterans he was helping shot and killed him.

So that is a mentally stable person supervising a mentally unstable person with a weapon.

Obviously we are talking about them firing the weapons.
Why on Earth would you think we were talking about empty weapons which might as well be replicas?


I know who Chris Kyle is, what I'm saying is I don't know him so therefore I can't tell you if he's sane or not. Also, it was Axl that said he, he said the key word of "hold", not "fire".
#62. Posted:
ProfessorNobody
  • Summer 2019
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
002 wrote
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Axl wrote
Mr_Robot wrote
Axl wrote I think that everyone has the right to own a firearm unless they breach the requirements for it but the other thing that comes in is the fact that some people may buy a firearm over websites like Craigslist because they want to make some money.


You said "Unless they breach the requirements" . What would you say should be the requirements for owning one?

I personally there should be little if any at all. The "requirements" is how the goverment is going to start disarming the public. By adding requirements, they are making it harder and harder to legally obtain one. Some states are even going as far to not let medical marijuana patients own a gun


Well, do you want someone with a mental illness to hold a firearm?


As long as they are accompanied by someone who is mentally stable, I see no issues.


You mean like Chris Kyle and veterans with PTSD?

But yes, I know that the numbers are going to be minuscule. Instead of saying, "I see no issues" it would have been more accurate if you had said, "I accept the issues but don't think they warrant a ban on mentally unstable people owning guns."

And that's fine.


I don't know him, therefore I can't comment on if he's mentally stable or not. Also, I think you would need to classify the different mental illnesses. PTSD is FAR different from schizophrenia. There are none, no, zip, zero nada issues with a mentally stable person allowing a mentally unstable person to handle a firearm. The mentally stable person should have enough common sense to make sure it's unloaded and on safe. At that point it's nothing more than a glorified baseball bat.


I'm surprised that I have to explain who Chris Kyle is to you but alright.
Chris Kyle is the sniper with the most confirmed kills in US military history. He returned after 3 tours (I think it was 3) to help veterans with PTSD work through their issues. Part of this involved going to a shooting range with them. However, while he was at a shooting range one of the veterans he was helping shot and killed him.

So that is a mentally stable person supervising a mentally unstable person with a weapon.

Obviously we are talking about them firing the weapons.
Why on Earth would you think we were talking about empty weapons which might as well be replicas?


I know who Chris Kyle is, what I'm saying is I don't know him so therefore I can't tell you if he's sane or not. Also, it was Axl that said he, he said the key word of "hold", not "fire".


Is throwing logical inference out of the window a debate strategy or just something you do by accident?

Here I'll fix it for you:

"Would you want a person with mental issues holding a loaded gun which is capable of firing rounds and harming people?"

And I hope you realise that you have just said that any war veteran who hasn't been diagnosed with PTSD and any firearm instructor doesn't classify as a 'Sane person' under any legislation you would want to implement because you personally don't know them and haven't examined their state of mind yourself.

I mean seriously, obviously the answer to the question of whether or not mentally unstable people should be allowed to own guns is a resounding no. Glock basically makes the same argument in the original post. I'm almost certain that you are only disagreeing with that point because it was made by someone who is anti-gun and everything they say must be wrong by definition.
#63. Posted:
002
  • 2 Million
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Axl wrote
Mr_Robot wrote
Axl wrote I think that everyone has the right to own a firearm unless they breach the requirements for it but the other thing that comes in is the fact that some people may buy a firearm over websites like Craigslist because they want to make some money.


You said "Unless they breach the requirements" . What would you say should be the requirements for owning one?

I personally there should be little if any at all. The "requirements" is how the goverment is going to start disarming the public. By adding requirements, they are making it harder and harder to legally obtain one. Some states are even going as far to not let medical marijuana patients own a gun


Well, do you want someone with a mental illness to hold a firearm?


As long as they are accompanied by someone who is mentally stable, I see no issues.


You mean like Chris Kyle and veterans with PTSD?

But yes, I know that the numbers are going to be minuscule. Instead of saying, "I see no issues" it would have been more accurate if you had said, "I accept the issues but don't think they warrant a ban on mentally unstable people owning guns."

And that's fine.


I don't know him, therefore I can't comment on if he's mentally stable or not. Also, I think you would need to classify the different mental illnesses. PTSD is FAR different from schizophrenia. There are none, no, zip, zero nada issues with a mentally stable person allowing a mentally unstable person to handle a firearm. The mentally stable person should have enough common sense to make sure it's unloaded and on safe. At that point it's nothing more than a glorified baseball bat.


I'm surprised that I have to explain who Chris Kyle is to you but alright.
Chris Kyle is the sniper with the most confirmed kills in US military history. He returned after 3 tours (I think it was 3) to help veterans with PTSD work through their issues. Part of this involved going to a shooting range with them. However, while he was at a shooting range one of the veterans he was helping shot and killed him.

So that is a mentally stable person supervising a mentally unstable person with a weapon.

Obviously we are talking about them firing the weapons.
Why on Earth would you think we were talking about empty weapons which might as well be replicas?


I know who Chris Kyle is, what I'm saying is I don't know him so therefore I can't tell you if he's sane or not. Also, it was Axl that said he, he said the key word of "hold", not "fire".


Is throwing logical inference out of the window a debate strategy or just something you do by accident?

Here I'll fix it for you:

"Would you want a person with mental issues holding a loaded gun which is capable of firing rounds and harming people?"

And I hope you realise that you have just said that any war veteran who hasn't been diagnosed with PTSD and any firearm instructor doesn't classify as a 'Sane person' under any legislation you would want to implement because you personally don't know them and haven't examined their state of mind yourself.


I'm working with what you guys are giving me, if you don't word it right then that is your problem, not mine. I guess before I make another comment, you're going to classify which mental issue(s). An eating disorder is mental, I would have no problem with someone that has an eating disorder handling a firearm. If someone had schizophrenia, I would not feel comfortable with them owning a firearm.

You are not understanding what I am saying... You need to actually know someone to know if they are mentally stable or not. I don't know Chris Kyle, so I don't know if he's stable or not. On one hand you mention one person, then turn it into a group of people.
#64. Posted:
ProfessorNobody
  • V5 Launch
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
002 wrote
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Axl wrote
Mr_Robot wrote
Axl wrote I think that everyone has the right to own a firearm unless they breach the requirements for it but the other thing that comes in is the fact that some people may buy a firearm over websites like Craigslist because they want to make some money.


You said "Unless they breach the requirements" . What would you say should be the requirements for owning one?

I personally there should be little if any at all. The "requirements" is how the goverment is going to start disarming the public. By adding requirements, they are making it harder and harder to legally obtain one. Some states are even going as far to not let medical marijuana patients own a gun


Well, do you want someone with a mental illness to hold a firearm?


As long as they are accompanied by someone who is mentally stable, I see no issues.


You mean like Chris Kyle and veterans with PTSD?

But yes, I know that the numbers are going to be minuscule. Instead of saying, "I see no issues" it would have been more accurate if you had said, "I accept the issues but don't think they warrant a ban on mentally unstable people owning guns."

And that's fine.


I don't know him, therefore I can't comment on if he's mentally stable or not. Also, I think you would need to classify the different mental illnesses. PTSD is FAR different from schizophrenia. There are none, no, zip, zero nada issues with a mentally stable person allowing a mentally unstable person to handle a firearm. The mentally stable person should have enough common sense to make sure it's unloaded and on safe. At that point it's nothing more than a glorified baseball bat.


I'm surprised that I have to explain who Chris Kyle is to you but alright.
Chris Kyle is the sniper with the most confirmed kills in US military history. He returned after 3 tours (I think it was 3) to help veterans with PTSD work through their issues. Part of this involved going to a shooting range with them. However, while he was at a shooting range one of the veterans he was helping shot and killed him.

So that is a mentally stable person supervising a mentally unstable person with a weapon.

Obviously we are talking about them firing the weapons.
Why on Earth would you think we were talking about empty weapons which might as well be replicas?


I know who Chris Kyle is, what I'm saying is I don't know him so therefore I can't tell you if he's sane or not. Also, it was Axl that said he, he said the key word of "hold", not "fire".


Is throwing logical inference out of the window a debate strategy or just something you do by accident?

Here I'll fix it for you:

"Would you want a person with mental issues holding a loaded gun which is capable of firing rounds and harming people?"

And I hope you realise that you have just said that any war veteran who hasn't been diagnosed with PTSD and any firearm instructor doesn't classify as a 'Sane person' under any legislation you would want to implement because you personally don't know them and haven't examined their state of mind yourself.


I'm working with what you guys are giving me, if you don't word it right then that is your problem, not mine. I guess before I make another comment, you're going to classify which mental issue(s). An eating disorder is mental, I would have no problem with someone that has an eating disorder handling a firearm. If someone had schizophrenia, I would not feel comfortable with them owning a firearm.

You are not understanding what I am saying... You need to actually know someone to know if they are mentally stable or not. I don't know Chris Kyle, so I don't know if he's stable or not. On one hand you mention one person, then turn it into a group of people.


You seem to be completely incapable of logical inference.

Any normal person would automatically remove any unrelated mental disorders from a list of mental disorders which could affect someone's ability to safely use a firearm without having to be told exactly what mental disorders are being referred to.

I am truly sorry that you are incapable of doing this but all that this results in is any attempt at a conversation with you gets stuck on trivial details and misses the broader point being made and I'm sorry to say that this does seem to be a tactic that you use to stifle these discussions.

But thank you for answering the question, finally. Schizophrenia is one mental disorder where you wouldn't want them using a firearm.

I don't care if you personally add no more mental disorders to that list or if you add 100 more to it, you have conceded to Axl's point that there are requirements people need to meet before they own a gun.

That was all I wanted you to do so thank you.

002 wrote No one here is arguing guns should be available to anyone, so I fail to see here why you're beating a dead horse. Everyone agrees that if you have a mental disorder that can endanger the life of others that you should not own a firearm.


And yet when Axl asked if people with mental disorders should be able to 'hold' guns - obviously meaning 'fire them' to anyone who doesn't assume that their opponent is a moron and is able to simply apply common sense to what someone is saying - you felt the need to say 'Yes.'

If you truly believed that he meant people just standing around holding a harmless gun with no bullets in it then I am guilty of beating a dead horse and you are guilty of picking at the low hanging fruit.

Beating a dead horse is an inevitability when talking to you because of how you discuss things.

Someone says 'requirements should be met before people can own guns'
Another person replies 'what requirements?'
The OP says, 'mental disorders'
You say, 'I agree but what mental disorders? not eating disorders why aren't you being clear enough? What about body positivity disorders? What about disorders where people can taste colours when they see them? you liberals just aren't specific enough''

It doesn't matter what mental disorders if you agree with both the points that there are requirements people should meet and that at least one mental disorder should stop people from owning a firearm.

You accuse me of beating a dead horse when you literally just disagreed with someone that you actually agree with because they weren't being specific enough for us to draft up a new gun control bill right here on TTG.


Last edited by ProfessorNobody ; edited 3 times in total
#65. Posted:
002
  • Winter 2023
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Cioran wrote
002 wrote
Axl wrote
Mr_Robot wrote
Axl wrote I think that everyone has the right to own a firearm unless they breach the requirements for it but the other thing that comes in is the fact that some people may buy a firearm over websites like Craigslist because they want to make some money.


You said "Unless they breach the requirements" . What would you say should be the requirements for owning one?

I personally there should be little if any at all. The "requirements" is how the goverment is going to start disarming the public. By adding requirements, they are making it harder and harder to legally obtain one. Some states are even going as far to not let medical marijuana patients own a gun


Well, do you want someone with a mental illness to hold a firearm?


As long as they are accompanied by someone who is mentally stable, I see no issues.


You mean like Chris Kyle and veterans with PTSD?

But yes, I know that the numbers are going to be minuscule. Instead of saying, "I see no issues" it would have been more accurate if you had said, "I accept the issues but don't think they warrant a ban on mentally unstable people owning guns."

And that's fine.


I don't know him, therefore I can't comment on if he's mentally stable or not. Also, I think you would need to classify the different mental illnesses. PTSD is FAR different from schizophrenia. There are none, no, zip, zero nada issues with a mentally stable person allowing a mentally unstable person to handle a firearm. The mentally stable person should have enough common sense to make sure it's unloaded and on safe. At that point it's nothing more than a glorified baseball bat.


I'm surprised that I have to explain who Chris Kyle is to you but alright.
Chris Kyle is the sniper with the most confirmed kills in US military history. He returned after 3 tours (I think it was 3) to help veterans with PTSD work through their issues. Part of this involved going to a shooting range with them. However, while he was at a shooting range one of the veterans he was helping shot and killed him.

So that is a mentally stable person supervising a mentally unstable person with a weapon.

Obviously we are talking about them firing the weapons.
Why on Earth would you think we were talking about empty weapons which might as well be replicas?


I know who Chris Kyle is, what I'm saying is I don't know him so therefore I can't tell you if he's sane or not. Also, it was Axl that said he, he said the key word of "hold", not "fire".


Is throwing logical inference out of the window a debate strategy or just something you do by accident?

Here I'll fix it for you:

"Would you want a person with mental issues holding a loaded gun which is capable of firing rounds and harming people?"

And I hope you realise that you have just said that any war veteran who hasn't been diagnosed with PTSD and any firearm instructor doesn't classify as a 'Sane person' under any legislation you would want to implement because you personally don't know them and haven't examined their state of mind yourself.


I'm working with what you guys are giving me, if you don't word it right then that is your problem, not mine. I guess before I make another comment, you're going to classify which mental issue(s). An eating disorder is mental, I would have no problem with someone that has an eating disorder handling a firearm. If someone had schizophrenia, I would not feel comfortable with them owning a firearm.

You are not understanding what I am saying... You need to actually know someone to know if they are mentally stable or not. I don't know Chris Kyle, so I don't know if he's stable or not. On one hand you mention one person, then turn it into a group of people.


You seem to be completely incapable of logical inference.

Any normal person would automatically remove any unrelated mental disorders from a list of mental disorders which could affect someone's ability to safely use a firearm without having to be told exactly what mental disorders are being referred to.

I am truly sorry that you are incapable of doing this but all that this results in is any attempt at a conversation with you gets stuck on trivial details and misses the broader point being made and I'm sorry to say that this does seem to be a tactic that you use to stifle these discussions.

But thank you for answering the question, finally. Schizophrenia is one mental disorder where you wouldn't want them using a firearm.

I don't care if you personally add no more mental disorders to that list or if you add 100 more to it, you have conceded to Axl's point that there are requirements people need to meet before they own a gun.

That was all I wanted you to do so thank you.


Not at all, you have to actually think. Remember, we're talking about what needs to be changed with firearms, so if we made a law today saying if you have a mental disorder, you can't own a gun, that's not fair to the person with an eating disorder, right?

No one here is arguing guns should be available to anyone, so I fail to see here why you're beating a dead horse. Everyone agrees that if you have a mental disorder that can endanger the life of others that you should not own a firearm. We're past that, it's already been discussed. Every time we bring up actual facts about how guns aren't as dangerous as liberals perceive, it always comes back to "well what about people with mental disorders"? Quite frankly it's annoying. It happens in every discussion, and you guys can't think far enough to understand the conversation and how to word things properly. Sorry not sorry, it is what it is.

I mean come one, Motivational still hasn't responded to my post showing him how is one sided view doesn't work, yet he's clearly here as he's still up voting and down voting. STOP BEATING A DEAD HORSE.
#66. Posted:
Motivational
  • V5 Launch
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 08, 201310Year Member
Posts: 1,728
Reputation Power: 137
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 08, 201310Year Member
Posts: 1,728
Reputation Power: 137
002 wrote I mean come one, Motivational still hasn't responded to my post showing him how is one sided view doesn't work, yet he's clearly here as he's still up voting and down voting. STOP BEATING A DEAD HORSE.


I didn't even read or see your post until there now because Continous wouldn't stop arguing and posting ridiculously long replies that took a lot of time to reply to.

I'm upvoting Cioran's posts because it's funny watching you try and refute what he's saying without using any actual statistics and just disliking each of his posts because his opinion is different to yours. Sometimes it's better to just not reply back than to dig an even bigger hole for youself to try and get out off.

And I don't down vote people who have a different opinion to me. It's extremely rare that I actually down vote anyone unless they're posting information that's blatantly wrong or they're just post boosting.

I'll reply to your other post tomorrow when I have time because I've got to wake up early tomorrow and it's going to take a long time to reply to that post.
#67. Posted:
002
  • Christmas!
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Motivational wrote
002 wrote I mean come one, Motivational still hasn't responded to my post showing him how is one sided view doesn't work, yet he's clearly here as he's still up voting and down voting. STOP BEATING A DEAD HORSE.


I didn't even read or see your post until there now because Continous wouldn't stop arguing and posting ridiculously long replies that took a lot of time to reply to.

I'm upvoting Cioran's posts because it's funny watching you try and refute what he's saying without using any actual statistics and just disliking each of his posts because his opinion is different to yours. Sometimes it's better to just not reply back than to dig an even bigger hole for youself to try and get out off.

And I don't down vote people who have a different opinion to me. It's extremely rare that I actually down vote anyone unless they're posting information that's blatantly wrong or they're just post boosting.

I'll reply to your other post tomorrow when I have time because I've got to wake up early tomorrow and it's going to take a long time to reply to that post.


It's all in the name of education, right?

I'll try to get on tomorrow, I get to fly out and deal with this mess of people protesting
#68. Posted:
Oozy
  • Christmas!
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 22, 20149Year Member
Posts: 1,462
Reputation Power: 74
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 22, 20149Year Member
Posts: 1,462
Reputation Power: 74
Motivational wrote I said I did not want to ban all guns. The key word here is all. I have no problem banning some guns, (semi-automatic etc.)


It does not matter what amount of guns you want to ban. This is how the government is taking away our rights and our guns. They say they just want to get rid of the guns with "30 cailber magazines" and how only the scary ones, then they slowly move on until they are all gone. Lets act like you just want to ban semi auto guns. That is completely ridiculous. Me and 002 have gave many reasons for them.

Why in the hell, would you want to shoot the animal more times? If you're hunting then you want to damage the animal as little as possible so you have more meat.

I do not want to shoot any animal, but you have to kill it some how. You are correct in the sense that you want to damage the animal as little as possible. But that is just not what always happens.

@Cioran Hunting is one of those things that you would need hands on experience to talk about. Motivational has no clue about what he is talking about. Let me refer you to what 002 said...

Next, your comment about "If you can't kill the animal in one shot to the head, don't hunt" just baffles my mind! That is literally an insult to all hunters. NO ONE in their right mind would aim for a headshot. It is a tiny place easy to miss. That deer can move its head a lot faster than its heard. A hunter always aims for the hear. Watch any hunting program, it's always shots placed in the chest. You shoot the animal more times if you need to so that it is dead.


And please, our ancestors hunted with knives and spears and you're complaining about having to use a bolt action rifle. If you can't kill the animal in one shot to the head, don't hunt. Or work on your target practice, which you Americans love so much.


Yes, but our ancestors used to live in tepees and go run around almost butt naked. The times have changed and we have advanced. I am not complaining about having to use a bolt action rifle, I am showing how a semi auto gun is better. Target practice only goes so far. As 002 said, the deer could move, and that has nothing to do with aim.

If you want to defend yourself from rape, it's called pepper spray and self defence classes. There's no need for a woman to be carrying a loaded gun in her handbags.


Pepper spray is not as effective as a gun. Self defense classes are good, and should be taken. But what do you do when there is lets say 10 people. Your self defense is only going to go so far.

Nobody, is going to shoot someone that they love or have known for a long time. It's that simple.


That is just not true. I mean maybe for some people. But that is not true for me. If you are going to try and rape me, then you deserve the worst. And in that situation, I hope that I would not shoot someone. They do not deserve to get off that easy.

Not to mention, nobody has time to go into their handpul, pull out a gun, take off the safety and point and shoot before they've been attacked and disarmed.


When you get a ccw, you normally have a class that you have to go through. You go through all sorts of stuff. One of those is pulling you gun. If I carried around a gun, then I would practice all the time. And you are assuming that I have a slow gun pull time. That is different with every person. Some guns do not have safety, they have other measures to make the gun safer, like a long trigger pull. You do not have to have the most precise aim when you are point blank, and you might even get lucky and the person seeing your gun might scare them off.

Having a gun on you also gives the rapist a story to makeup for the police, e.g the woman pulled the gun during an argument and he disarmed her hence the bruises. Or it gives the rapist a weapon to kill the victim with.


That is possible, i am not going to argue with that. But I am going to say that it will not always work like that.

No matter what way you put it, having pepper spray or a taser is far far more effective than using a gun to defend a rape. And even if the statisitcs were true, I'd rather have slightly higher rape statisitcs than 100 more mass shootings, higher crime rates, obesity rates etc.


How is pepper spray for effective? One shot from a gun is all it takes to immediately stop some of these rapes. You might miss with your pepper spray, or they might have glasses. Your taser will not always stop someone.

Exactly. That's where we differ. I would rather nobody has guns and they're not missued and no shootings happen than lots of people have them and use them for completely pointless reasons.


A lot of guns are not used for completely useless reasons. We have told you many good reasons for guns, and I have said that they have been used to stop millions of crimes. If guns were completely useless, then the police and the military would not have them.

I don't see how this is even an argument, your country has a higher crime rate than mine and more mass shootings and we have stricter gun control. It's that simple, if you'd rather you can have a gun but you're at the risk of being shot in public then that's fine but don't try and bring some sort of logical reasoning behind it becasue it wont work.


I would much rather risk being shot in public then have my rights taken away. A gun is a very good tool. It is what I would classify as a equalizer. It puts you at a more even playing field. For example one gun can stop multiple intruders.

There is no point aruging with you because we're getting nowhere, all you're doing is replying to my posts with long replies and they're almost completely opinion based or the facts are easilly refuted like your Japan statistics were you tried to claim that one mass killing in Japan which killed seven people is horrible, yet there's been hundreds of americian mass shootings.


You have said this multiple times, so let me makes this as simple and easy for you to understand as I can. If you do not want to argue, then just quit arguing. No body is forcing you to argue. I try to make good long replies so that you get a better idea of what I think. Some of my replies are opinions, and some of it is facts. That one japan mass murder was bad but no where near as bad as Americas. A gun is just a tool. It is the person who is using it. I'm not referring to just mass murders, I mean anything that has to do with guns.

Honestly, you can tell the maturity level difference between people who pro guns and who are against. Nobody who's against guns dislikes other's opinions or downvotes their posts but anyone who argues against guns gets two to three dislikes per post. Really shows which side is more childish.


Anti-gun people like you get down votes because you spread misinformation and do not know what you are talking about. Down votes and up votes have nothing to do with maturity. If I see something that I do not like or is NOT USEFUL, I dislike. I think that you are completely useless to this argument and do nothing other than spread misinformation, so I do not find your comments helpful. You are just as bad as the person who made a rant the other day about how he hates when people do not agree with his comments and dislike them. Why is that so hard to understand? People like Cioran, are logical people and can have a normal discussion, he does not spread misinformation, he uses facts and logical thinking. You may not know what I mean by logical, so here is a example of what is not logical... "but why the hell, does a fifty two year old need a handgun and a semi-automatic rifle for?" That is one of the most retarded things that I have heard on this forum.

Do not take things so personal, just try and have a discussion.
#69. Posted:
Motivational
  • V5 Launch
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 08, 201310Year Member
Posts: 1,728
Reputation Power: 137
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 08, 201310Year Member
Posts: 1,728
Reputation Power: 137
Continuous wrote I would much rather risk being shot in public then have my rights taken away


Bingo.

This is the exact reason that we're not getting anywhere with this argument, nor are we going to get anywhere.

You care about your rights to have a firearm (which, having a hunting rifle would still give you) too much to consider banning or even further restricting firearms.

That kind of thinking isn't possible for me because I don't value my rights to something as small as a semi-automatic rifle to be more than a single human being's life and definitely not thousands of lives.

The rest of your reply was completely opinionated and I especially love how you didn't include my quote where I said "A country without guns if safer and the statistics prove it", following by a side by side comparison between the USA and Japan and showing that Japan was an all round safer country. Because there's literally no counter to that. Yes, I saw that 002 tried but him and I have had that argument before and he still hasn't learnt from the last time he used Switzerland as an example.

As I said, you're providing no facts or statistics, just your opinion compared to mine which we can't really argue about because our opinions are meaningless without statistics to back them up.

It's strange how you're so anti-abortion too, considering that you're all for your rights to bear firearms but not woman's rights to decide what happens to their child, that's pretty contradicting.

Continuous wrote Here is a example of what is not logical... "but why the hell, does a fifty two year old need a handgun and a semi-automatic rifle for?" That is one of the most retarded things that I have heard on this forum.


Yet again, you've misunderstood another one of my points.

I have no problem with the woman owning a pistol and for arguments sake, a semi-automatic rifle but why does she need both? Is she planning on going downstairs if her house is being robbed with a pistol in one hand and an assault rifle in the other? I highly doubt.

The simple point is that if she only had a pistol then that school massacre might not have happened and she'd still be just as likely to defend a home robbery as if she had the rifle.

It makes no sense for an elderly woman to be carrying a big assault rifle downstairs that fires at a similar rate to her pistol and at someone who isn't going to wearing body armour, thus the larger bullet size is irrelevant. The pistol is smaller, easier to aim, cheaper, weighs less, and the key factor in defending her home is that the robber will likely run when they hear he firing her weapon. There's absolutely no need for her to have a semi-automatic rifle and her having that rifle, caused 20+ children and herself to die.

For 002

Funny enough, I'm actually pretty knowledgeable in hunting even though I'm against it unless it's for food.

002 wrote Oh dear god! Where do we start? Let's start with the hunting thing. Taking an animal out is supposed to be quick and humane. Look at a bullet. It is a small projectile that can get tossed around in the wind. It's not like CoD where it hits exactly where the cross hairs are. They drop, they move left and right, etc. If you shoot and a gust of wind picks up that bullet and places it in the gut of the animal, now it's suffering while you're comprehending it, pumping another bullet it, and re-gaining the target. With a semi auto rifle (yes I now hunt with semi auto), you stay in the scope to make sure the animal is down before you even move. It's all about taking the animal out as quickly and humanely as possible, not with knives and spears.


002 wrote Next, your comment about "If you can't kill the animal in one shot to the head, don't hunt" just baffles my mind! That is literally an insult to all hunters. NO ONE in their right mind would aim for a headshot. It is a tiny place easy to miss. That deer can move its head a lot faster than its heard. A hunter always aims for the hear. Watch any hunting program, it's always shots placed in the chest. You shoot the animal more times if you need to so that it is dead.


You're obviously taking about deer which I agree you should aim for the main organs in the torso with because they're easier to hit. However, if you can land a shot on the brain, the deer will be killed instantly and more humanely.

Another reason that hunters aim for the torso, along with it being easier to hit is because they don't want to spoil the head that they could use for a trophy. I'm not supportive of that but it's something to consider.

You might find this interesting:

When you sharpshoot deer for a living, as Grant Woods did for 21 years, "you can't afford misses or wounded deer running around," he says. Both cost you time and money--especially a wounded, bleeding deer, running for its life and spooking other deer. How do you guarantee a drop-it-where-it-stands shot? For Anthony DeNicola, owner of White Buffalo, a top deer-control operation, it's all about the brain.

"Draw a line from tear duct to tear duct, then go 2.5 to 2.75 inches above that line, centered," says DeNicola. "That's where you want to place your bullet--first and best option."

A bullet in the brain instantly incapacitates the animal; death follows in seconds. DeNicola uses .223-caliber rifles, firing 50- to 55-grain frangible varmint projectiles that expend all their energy into the brainpan. In the urban and suburban environments in which he works, DeNicola can't afford to have a round exiting an animal.

Second option: A brain shot from the side. Third: A shot just below the back of the skull in the first four cervical vertebrae of the spine. "The deer drop immediately," DeNicola says of the vertebrae shot. "Heart and lung functions will cease. They lose consciousness and die in eight to 12 seconds."
If he's only got a shot lower down on the neck, DeNicola will usually wait for a better option. In his business, body shots are way too risky.


There's disadvantages for aiming at the torso too, such as missing the heart and clipping the lung and having the deer bleed out while you continue to hunt it. That's not humane in anyway and certainly isn't an instant kill.

I wasn't specifically talking about deer, I was talking about smaller animals like squirrels and fowl that don't have much meat but very small heads. Shooting an animal like that in the torso would limit the amount of meat that you get from then and it would make more sense to just aim for the head.

002 wrote Pepper spray and tasers are not more effective. With a taser you have to be up close. With pepper spray and tasers, it's never 100% people drugged up on cocaine sometimes don't even get effected. A gun effects everyone. A gun has better stopping power than a taser or pepper spray making it more effective.


[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I could find lots more articles, one I saw was a man being shot twenty one times by the police and surviving but for this one the majority of shots were in the torso with an extra one in the head which is far harder to survive than just being shot in the legs and arms.

Sometimes tasers don't work but the same goes for guns. If a rapist is approaching you, you can't just shoot him straight in the head or heart because that's not using reasonable force to defend yourself, that's blatant murder. Very few rapes are preventable, as I said the majority of time it's someone that the victim loves and the majority of people aren't going to shoot their wife or husband that they've been with for years and end their life, when they could simply pepper spray or taser them and run.

002 wrote Do you know why my country has more crime than yours? WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE!



That's a fair point, however I'll disprove that now though.

Firstly, I was referring to gun crimes because both yourself, and Continous have said multiple times that if you restricted criminal's weapons, then they'd just create the weapons themselves or find another method to get them. If that was the case then you'd expect that the UK would have a slightly lower gun crime rate than the US, I'd imagine around 20-30% lower but that's just my own opinion.

UK has roughly 65 million people and the US has around 320 million.

So I'll be very kind and assume that the US has 325 million people to make this calculations easier.

That means that the US has 5 times more people than the UK, so you would expect five times more gun crime.

However, that's not the case. Instead the US has approximately 138x more gun crime than the UK.

Not to be an asshole but the average IQ in the UK is also decently higher than the United States so the criminals here are equally as intelligent, if not more intelligent (on average) than American criminals.

002 wrote So you want to bring Japan into this now? Let's bring Switzerland in as well.

A country with guns is not safer and statistics prove it. I can play this game too.


[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

You should have done a bit more research on Switzerland before you used it as an example. Firstly, guns aren't that plentiful in Switzerland anymore. They used to have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world but that has since changed. Since 2008, Switzerland has complied with European Union gun control requirements and changed a lot of their rules and laws.

Also, the reason that the gun ownership rate is so high is because every male is required by law to serve in the military when they reach twenty. This means that once they're done, they get to keep their service weapon at home which means that for every single male in Switzerland, there has or will be a weapon given to them at some point. This is the main reason that their gun ownership is so high. The most important thing to take away from this is that although they're allowed to keep their weapon at home, they're not allowed ammunition. This is why the statistics are so misleading in Switzerland, because although they have a lot of guns, they're useless because they have no ammunition.

Getting a permit to carry a firearm is very difficult too and you need a genuine reason ("It's one of my basic rights" isn't enough). and if you happen to shoot someone then you will almost certainly end up in jail for murder, even if they were burgling your house at the time.

Switzerland's low crime rates has nothing, NOTHING to do with guns. If you want an answer to why the crime rate is low, look at things like the low unemployment rate, comprehensive welfare state and the fact that the income gap between the "rich" and "poor" is far narrower than any other country in the world (as a benchmark, if you work in a supermarket you'll get paid upwards of $4200/month). If you create a society that is reasonably fair, equal and prosperous that does infinitely more for cutting crime rates than handing out guns.

According to recent (2014) estimations of guns per 100 residents in Switzerland is about 25, which is, for example, lower than Germany, France, or Austria.


In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the US


Switzerland also has extremely strict gun control when it comes to foreigners. You cannot buy a weapon if you you have a citizenship from Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria or Albania.

I think I've proven my point that Switzerland's low crime rate has absolutely nothing to do with their gun ownership.

002 wrote We're not down voting opinion, we're down voting misrepresented facts.


I'm the one misrepresenting facts? Just read my post about Switzerland above and ask yourself who's misrepresenting facts.
#70. Posted:
002
  • Rigged Luck
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Well first off I would like to touch on the women with the semi auto rifles. Pistols are very difficult to control, especially if you have bad wrists like a lot of older folk do.

As far as the head shot, he's useing a .22 caliber bullet (which is illegal to hunt with in a lot of places), so if he doesn't have REALLY good shot placement in the torso then he's got issues. If he was useing a heavier grain .30 caliber bullet (say 160 grain), he's have no issues with shooting the torso. If you hit it with a heavy bullet you won't be chasing it even if you do hit it in the lungs, or even the guts. I've hit a deer in the neck / chest area and it dropped and didn't get up. It was still alive and could've moved but it was in too much pain from such a heavy bullet ripping through it.

I agree, guns aren't always 100%, but as far as the guy that survived 20 shots, I'm not sure what firearm and ammo was used. You don't just have a caliber bullet, you have red tips, green tips, black tips, hollow points, soft points, full metal jacket, steel core, etc. If FMJ steel core was used it's not surprising as that is meant for penetration and not killing. What should've been used is hollow points.

As far as the husband and wife thing, you have wives that are hiring people to murder their husbands. If a relationship is that volotile where rape is happening, there are a lot of women who would like to see that person die instead of just going to jail. I can't give you any hard core statistics besides the couple women that I know who've been raped that want the man dead (one was a newly wed).

Guns have been banned in the UK for how long? I know it hasn't been centuries, but it's been a few decades. One thing I would like to bring up on that point however is Mexico. Mexico has laws similar to the UK in regards to guns, they don't tolerate possession of certain lethal firearms. It's not working out too well for them is it? Yes, the US does contribute to that issue, but so does South America. In the UK you guys are on an island making it very easy to regulate the ports. The US, Mexico, Canada, etc. are attached to huge land masses where people can illegally import firearms. I know you guys have a coast line where people would drop them off on boats, but look how much bigger the US, Canadian, and Mexican coast lines are.

As far as ammo for Switzerland, you can get ammo from Italy. Is it illegal? I'm sure it is, but you and I both know people still do it. I was not aware that you can't buy ammo in Switzerland, but they do get their ammo from the military, and some are permitted to keep it. Either way, according this chart the US doesn't seem so bad for gun ownership vs homicide rates.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Jump to:
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.