Another week yet another mass shooting in the USA

Avatar image for comicsrulebutdbzdoes2
ComicsrulebutDBZdoes2

7566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Now I know there's alot of pro gun nuts on here and I have no idea why you think the right to bare arms is such a big deal with the amount of mass shootings that occur I have no idea why you think arming more people is a good idea there's obviously something wrong with both your policies and your education system

An MEDC country should not have 250+ mass shootings already this year and it's not even over yet

My wishes and thoughts go out to one that died and those that are injured

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/09/northern-arizona-university-shooting-leaves-one-dead-and-three-injured

The violence needs to end

Avatar image for pipxeroth
pipxeroth

10000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Its not just every week unfortunately, it's more common than that. The media just doesn't report on all of it.

Avatar image for cpt_facepuncher
Cpt_FacePuncher

1137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

At this point, making guns illegal just takes them away from the people who want to protect themselves. Gun culture is so engrained in the United States that banning guns would have no effect on gun based crimes.

I'd also like to point out that hammers kill more people in America than guns do, so there's that.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The right to bear arms is such a big deal because it's the second amendment in the constitution. So because a few people go on a killing spree, this represents the rest of gun owners/the public and should have their possessions taken away?

I don't think the actions of a few scumbags should take away the rights of the people. Just so people can feel "safe". The issue is clearly these individuals that commit these crimes and there's a certain pattern to them. Why not go after the real problem and try to find out what it is, instead of taking the easy way out with blaming guns?

Did you know Chicago is one of the most strict cities on gun control. Yet people get shot and killed over the weekend time after time? The people that commit these crimes don't get their guns legally either. Hmmm I don't think criminals really give a shit about laws and gun control. Yet let's make more and maybe they'll listen this time right? At the same time limiting the rights of law abiding citizens.

Funny how no one ever expresses any outrage at the people dying every weekend in Chicago. Innocent people included. *Cough Cough Obama* It's only when it happens at some suburban school or university that people start to care and then bring up guns all of a sudden. But hey ban guns.

Avatar image for rick_and_morty
Rick_and_morty

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Don't try and be the middle man and only come up with problems. Think of a solution before generally talking smack about everybody's ideas

Avatar image for dum529001
dum529001

3991

Forum Posts

141

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By dum529001

@comicsrulebutdbzdoes2 said:

Now I know there's alot of pro gun nuts on here and I have no idea why you think the right to bare arms is such a big deal with the amount of mass shootings that occur I have no idea why you think arming more people is a good idea there's obviously something wrong with both your policies and your education system

An MEDC country should not have 250+ mass shootings already this year and it's not even over yet

My wishes and thoughts go out to one that died and those that are injured

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/09/northern-arizona-university-shooting-leaves-one-dead-and-three-injured

The violence needs to end

Take guns and other weapons away from the police and the army. Does that seem right?

Even if we can't win a fight, the point of having weapons is to resist. Individual citizens and the nation as whole has the right to resist violation of their rights. We do not have to roll over and just let people have their way with us.

Trying to ban guns is pointless. You can try some kind of regulation but you can't ban weapons.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

The right to bear arms is such a big deal because it's the second amendment in the constitution. So because a few people go on a killing spree, this represents the rest of gun owners/the public and should have their possessions taken away?

The thing is that the second amendment was written in a time when US had a rather poorly army, was facing the potential invasion of the Mexicans in the south and the British in the north along with the still possible attacks by the natives. So back then the amendment made a lot of sense to have. The difference now is that the US has the strongest army in the world, is under no threat of invasion because of that, but the mentality remains, only now it just seems like the enemy people want guns for are the government and other americans.

At this point, making guns illegal just takes them away from the people who want to protect themselves. Gun culture is so engrained in the United States that banning guns would have no effect on gun based crimes.

I'd also like to point out that hammers kill more people in America than guns do, so there's that.

It could make a difference, if both the average citizen and the government was serious about doing something about it. But part of the problem is that guns have achieved their own symbolic value as one of strength even for the average person. You are right in the sense that criminals will always have access to guns, thats the same everywhere, the difference lies in that a ban would be making the taking away those weapon a lot easier and. hopefully, tougher laws would mean the mentally ill wouldn't have such an easy time getting their hands on them. And by that I simply mean, rather than dad storing his gun in a shoebox in the closet, how about he kept it in a locked safe?

Hammers? I'll be honest, I haven't heard that one before, but they have some catching up to do with the approx. 95.000 deaths and injuries guns are involved in.

Avatar image for deactivated-5ee15da0e0aad
deactivated-5ee15da0e0aad

8219

Forum Posts

240

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for comicsrulebutdbzdoes2
ComicsrulebutDBZdoes2

7566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@scorpion2501: wow so soon, just speechless

R.I.P all this violence for no reason is despicable

Avatar image for deathstroke52
deathstroke52

6818

Forum Posts

487

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

The right to bear arms is such a big deal because it's the second amendment in the constitution. So because a few people go on a killing spree, this represents the rest of gun owners/the public and should have their possessions taken away?

I don't think the actions of a few scumbags should take away the rights of the people. Just so people can feel "safe". The issue is clearly these individuals that commit these crimes and there's a certain pattern to them. Why not go after the real problem and try to find out what it is, instead of taking the easy way out with blaming guns?

Did you know Chicago is one of the most strict cities on gun control. Yet people get shot and killed over the weekend time after time? The people that commit these crimes don't get their guns legally either. Hmmm I don't think criminals really give a shit about laws and gun control. Yet let's make more and maybe they'll listen this time right? At the same time limiting the rights of law abiding citizens.

Funny how no one ever expresses any outrage at the people dying every weekend in Chicago. Innocent people included. *Cough Cough Obama* It's only when it happens at some suburban school or university that people start to care and then bring up guns all of a sudden. But hey ban guns.

Avatar image for knightsofdarkness2
Knightsofdarkness2

8155

Forum Posts

228

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

What will taking away guns do exactly? The black market exists, getting guns illegally is extremely doable. Guns are just a tool, a tool that can also be used to protect and defend. The murderous psychopaths behind these guns are the real monsters. This narrow-minded "banning guns will solve everything" bullshit won't do jack. The same people who use guns for murder are gonna commit crimes anyway.

Also, just because a couple of crazy assholes decide to go on a killing rampage which they WILL commit with or without a gun, and then using that to generalize everyone else who owns a gun for defensive rationale is pathetic. Instead of going constantly back and forth with a topic that never goes anywhere, how about us people and the government actually DO something about mass murders?

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

#12  Edited By BatWatch

Flagged for calling people "pro gun nuts" in OP. Isn't using petty insults on somebody just because they have a different viewpoint on a political issue against CV rules? Please correct me if I'm wrong, Moderator.

We can have a useful discussion about these issues, but assuming that the other side is insane and worthy of ridicule because they don't see the world the exact same way as you is not helpful or mature, OP.

@outside_85:

"The thing is that the second amendment was written in a time when US had a rather poorly army, was facing the potential invasion of the Mexicans in the south and the British in the north along with the still possible attacks by the natives. So back then the amendment made a lot of sense to have. The difference now is that the US has the strongest army in the world, is under no threat of invasion because of that, but the mentality remains, only now it just seems like the enemy people want guns for are the government and other americans."

The 2nd Amendment was primarily provided for the opposition of tyranny from the United States government not from foreign powers. A host of quotes from the Founding Fathers proves this. For this reason, having a strong centralized standing military should incite more private gun ownership not less.

Also, Mexico was not even a nation until thirty years after the Bill of Rights.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

@batwatch said:

The 2nd Amendment was primarily provided for the opposition of tyranny from the United States government not from foreign powers. A host of quotes from the Founding Fathers proves this. For this reason, having a strong centralized standing military should incite more private gun ownership not less.

Also, Mexico was not even a nation until thirty years after the Bill of Rights.

The tyrannical government the writers of the 2nd Amendment had in mind was the one in London, Paris and the other colonial powers that wanted a piece of the US, not their own. Otherwise your Founding Fathers wrote into your constitution the option for a legal civil war. And why would a strong military necessitate more civilians carrying arms? The army is there to protect and fight for them, since the US is not a dictatorship or is even close to being one... unless you are one of those morons that wants a Putin-like guy in the White House or think the recently concluded Operation Jade Helmet training excersize was really a prelude to the army invading Texas.

True, it was a Spanish colony... and you'd have a war with them about 50 years later. Also Washington was set on fire by the British about 25 years after the BoR. The point was that back then the US was far more vulnerable than it is now.

Avatar image for william300
william300

783

Forum Posts

138

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Most criminals don't get their guns through legal channels, gun control would only limit the average citizen who only have guns for self defense and game hunting. It's wrong to punish the many for the crimes of a few, especially when said punishment wouldn't fix the problem anyways. These nuts are going to get their guns one way or another, and taking guns away from their victims would make things worse. I like the idea of teachers taking gun classes and being allowed to carry a hidden firearm in case of emergency.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#15 Lunacyde  Moderator

@comicsrulebutdbzdoes2:

You honestly believe that banning guns will end violence?

Violence can only be fought through education, knowledge, and understanding. Banning tools used to perpetrate violence will never end violence, it will merely change the violence into a different form.

Avatar image for darthaznable
DarthAznable

16960

Forum Posts

361

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for cattlebattle
cattlebattle

20962

Forum Posts

313

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Does everyone believe all these mass shootings are actually real?? I mean, not only do a lot of them happen after something completely embarrassing happens with people in seats of power or wealth in or affiliated with the US government....but most of them have a lot of really suspicious loose ends if you look into them more closely; like the Sandy Hook kid's parents all having suspicious backgrounds, or the fact that the gunman of that incident seems to not have existed before that day. Or in the case of James Holmes, who shot up the Aurora movie theater, he was apparently a nerdy neurosurgery student that turned into Solid Snake within a couple of weeks.

I implore you to watch this video of the father of the Umpaq School shooters father objectively... Tell me, in all honesty... does this video seem like A) A father whose child just went on a shooting rampage and dies in the process,so you figure he would be upset, hysterical, distraught etc.. or does it seem like B) a man who is given a script to push gun control? Remember, be objective

Loading Video...

Avatar image for cgoodness
Cream_God

15519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Guns have pheromones that induces a rabies like state via the "Reaganism" fungus that cause these shootings. COLD HARD LIBERAL TRUE FACT!!!!

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#19 Lunacyde  Moderator

I never put much stock in people's analysis of how parents confronting tragedy should act. Who are you to judge someone who is experiencing a trauma? If you have other evidence I'd love to see it, but human beings are notoriously unpredictable in behavior.

Avatar image for dum529001
dum529001

3991

Forum Posts

141

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for nefarious
nefarious

35827

Forum Posts

6914

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

*Sigh*

Avatar image for straight-fire
Straight-Fire

31755

Forum Posts

6546

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#22  Edited By Straight-Fire

Another one of these bullshit topics, huh?

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

@outside_85:

"The tyrannical government the writers of the 2nd Amendment had in mind was the one in London, Paris and the other colonial powers that wanted a piece of the US, not their own. Otherwise your Founding Fathers wrote into your constitution the option for a legal civil war."

The Founding Fathers had just fought a successful Civil War against their own government (England) to gain independence. Of course they wanted to preserve the ability for the citizenry to wage Civil War.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."" - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"And why would a strong military necessitate more civilians carrying arms? The army is there to protect and fight for them..."

Strong militaries have often seized power on their own or a dictator's initiative. The FF hated the idea of a standing army.

"since the US is not a dictatorship or is even close to being one..."

The federal government broadens the scope of it's powers every day. We are not a dictatorship, but that does not mean we have freedom nor that we could not quickly become a dictatorship. Dictators rarely voice their intentions beforehand.

"unless you are one of those morons that wants a Putin-like guy in the White House"

I want the government to have less control of individuals life. Putin is a quasi-dictator. Why would I support him?

"or think the recently concluded Operation Jade Helmet training excersize was really a prelude to the army invading Texas."

I do not put stock in the Jade Helm (not Helmet) conspiracy theory, but I do believe that good governments can turn corrupt and oppressive, a belief backed up by countless examples throughout history.

"True, it was a Spanish colony... and you'd have a war with them about 50 years later. Also Washington was set on fire by the British about 25 years after the BoR."

All irrelevant.

"The point was that back then the US was far more vulnerable than it is now."

The point is that the 2nd Amendment was largely, though not solely, about protection against domestic tyranny. There are many points in the gun liberty debate worth discussion, but the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not debatable if you know American history.

@lunacyde said:

I never put much stock in people's analysis of how parents confronting tragedy should act. Who are you to judge someone who is experiencing a trauma? If you have other evidence I'd love to see it, but human beings are notoriously unpredictable in behavior.

Agreed.

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

@sophia89:

It will be interesting to see what the violence and murder rates are for this year. Due to the coverage of shootings and the Black Lives Matters movement, it feels like violent incidents must be skyrocketing, but it could be just the media hype.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

#26  Edited By Outside_85

@batwatch said:

The Founding Fathers had just fought a successful Civil War against their own government (England) to gain independence. Of course they wanted to preserve the ability for the citizenry to wage Civil War.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."" - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

Strong militaries have often seized power on their own or a dictator's initiative. The FF hated the idea of a standing army.

The federal government broadens the scope of it's powers every day. We are not a dictatorship, but that does not mean we have freedom nor that we could not quickly become a dictatorship. Dictators rarely voice their intentions beforehand.

I want the government to have less control of individuals life. Putin is a quasi-dictator. Why would I support him?

I do not put stock in the Jade Helm (not Helmet) conspiracy theory, but I do believe that good governments can turn corrupt and oppressive, a belief backed up by countless examples throughout history.

All irrelevant.

The point is that the 2nd Amendment was largely, though not solely, about protection against domestic tyranny. There are many points in the gun liberty debate worth discussion, but the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not debatable if you know American history.

By that effect they were basically signalling they themselves were potentially no better than the people they replaced? Where is the logic in that?

So according to Jefferson, anarchists and insurrectionists are a good thing?

While true, it kinda ignores the other factors that are normally at play in places like that which makes it possible to pull off... like super unpopular and corrupt leaders (Egypt), miserable living conditions, nutty generals (Idi Amin), sectarian divides (Syria, Iraq) and so on.

To briefly steer back on something topical here: oddly enough, the same people who are opposing every common-sense regulation regarding guns, are often the same people who tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. Regarding your freedom... which one is actually being taken away from you? I mean, you can still call whoever is in the White House the most awful things with next to no repercussions. You can actually run for president with a campaign based on boasting, smearing and outright lies. You can do just about anything you like; as long as it doesn't negatively affect other human beings.

I didn't say you specifically were one of them. But Palin, amongst others, is on record for having said someone like Putin was what the White House needed, because Obama was regarded as a wuss.

The government could turn corrupt and set the army on you... if you were living in somekind of third world country. As it is, the US army is not belonging to one political group or the other, or sees itself as a kind of guardian against the politicians. And the current state of Washington means Hell is more likely to freeze over before that kind of power-grabbing unity would emerge there to pull this off.

No, it highlights that the Founding Fathers had good reason for writing in the 2nd Amendment; because the US was actually under threat from foreign powers back then. Unlike now, where it basically maintains the sad spiral where Americans are killing each other rather than an actual enemy. I mean, combine all the casualties the US suffered overseas from various warzones, diseases and terrorist attacks from the last decade and you only have a fraction of casualties compared to those inflicted by other Americans.

Let me just say that it is not whats actually written on the paper. Unless I am missing something by readin a post-it note version, the 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right of a militia to bear arms... not define what they are allowed to use them for.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#27 Lunacyde  Moderator

It's interesting to contemplate how these shootings are so numerous in the face of a steady and dramatic decrease in violent crime over the past 25 years.

Avatar image for monsterstomp
MonsterStomp

37649

Forum Posts

361

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Inb4 weak-ass pro-gun arguments...

Wait... never mind.

Avatar image for cpt_facepuncher
Cpt_FacePuncher

1137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@outside_85: I was wrong about the hammers thing. I apologize for not looking up the stats myself. Personal weapons (blunt objects such as hammers and fists are included) kill more than rifles and shotguns combined. Handguns, however, account for 70% of homicides in the U.S.

Avatar image for kute
Kute

1772

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I do get the anti-gun-control crowds arguments. They do make sense. But since the current system isn't working, maybe it's time to try something new. Anything.

Avatar image for roboshark
RoboShark

2637

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

This country loves it's mass shootings.

Avatar image for risingbean
RisingBean

10000

Forum Posts

23

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Now I know there's alot of pro gun nuts on here and I have no idea why you think the right to bare arms is such a big deal with the amount of mass shootings that occur I have no idea why you think arming more people is a good idea there's obviously something wrong with both your policies and your education system

An MEDC country should not have 250+ mass shootings already this year and it's not even over yet

My wishes and thoughts go out to one that died and those that are injured

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/09/northern-arizona-university-shooting-leaves-one-dead-and-three-injured

The violence needs to end

What are you personally doing to end this violence? Are you obtaining a degree in psychology so you can help these people who commit murder? Are you joining a police force and risking your life for the gain of your community? Or are you just coming onto a website and bitching about things and doing nothing about it?

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17190

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@comicsrulebutdbzdoes2: you know how many murders happen without the use of guns? People have murdered other people well before the use of guns.

Essentially because of how guns and drugs are smuggled over the border illegally, there isn't a chance in hell in ridding the country of Guns. That means the right to bear arms and protect you and your family is a necessity.

Avatar image for ximpossibrux
ximpossibrux

5753

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By ximpossibrux

You can be pro-gun or anti-gun.

Just make sure that the people who possess guns aren't lunatics and buying these guns needs proper control.

Granted, this is an extremely hard process.

Avatar image for thedarkpaladin
Thedarkpaladin

22885

Forum Posts

30

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35  Edited By Thedarkpaladin

@dboyrules2011 said:Another one of these bullshit topics, huh?

I don't know what's worse, left-wing anti gun nuts, or the people that buy into these arguments.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

#36  Edited By Outside_85

@cpt_facepuncher said:

@outside_85: I was wrong about the hammers thing. I apologize for not looking up the stats myself. Personal weapons (blunt objects such as hammers and fists are included) kill more than rifles and shotguns combined. Handguns, however, account for 70% of homicides in the U.S.

Ah I see, no worries and thanks.

@comicsrulebutdbzdoes2: you know how many murders happen without the use of guns? People have murdered other people well before the use of guns.

Essentially because of how guns and drugs are smuggled over the border illegally, there isn't a chance in hell in ridding the country of Guns. That means the right to bear arms and protect you and your family is a necessity.

By necessity, you make it sound like; no matter who you are, where you live and what you do, you will at one point in your life be faced with a life and death situation involving a gun and that death is the only result if you aren't packing heat as well.