User Controls
The bottom line is that if guns were not around, (in civilian society) bad guys would not be able to pull their triggers...
-
2023-05-10 at 1:02 PM UTCThe good guys don't need guns to defend themselves from the bad guys , if the bad guys do not have guns. For those that use guns for hunting purposes, use other weapons to hunt, like a bow and arrow, or whatever. Figure it out. THE END.
-
2023-05-10 at 1:04 PM UTChow do you plan on removing guns from 'the bad guys'
how do you define 'the bad guys' -
2023-05-10 at 1:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra how do you plan on removing guns from 'the bad guys'
how do you define 'the bad guys'
criminals having them is the same as "not around"
Because if you ban guns because they can be used in crimes, people will just use something else.
like a sharp stick
Once again the media doesn't even understand the issue in the first place, property rights. That's what this is about, not guns.
Originally posted by WellHung For those that use guns for hunting purposes, use other weapons to hunt, like a bow and arrow, or whatever. Figure it out. THE END.
It sounds to me like you're the bad guy and YOU should figure it out
-
2023-05-10 at 1:13 PM UTC
-
2023-05-10 at 1:14 PM UTC
-
2023-05-10 at 1:15 PM UTC
-
2023-05-10 at 1:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by WellHung It's too late for that. My idea would have needed to have been implemented from the start. Criminals who use guns during the commission of crimes.
You should be shot
Originally posted by WellHung Lol Can someone mow down 40 people in a school cafeteria, in a few minutes, with a sharp stick? Look, Scron, my idea flew right over your head!
If you gave all the children sharp sticks and they bum rushed the attacker I bet it would work
and then if they can prove themselves with sticks, you give them a pistol -
2023-05-10 at 1:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra neither of the two highest-casualty terror attacks in modern history employed guns
But the vast majority of Terror attacks involve guns, which still means more total volume of casualties in favor of the gun related terrorism acts. Aldra, you may be superior at memorizing facts and pieces of information, but your logic and reasoning does not exceed mine. TRUTH.👍🤙🤟⚘️ however, thank you for participating in my threads, lately, and I enjoy debating with you. I hope you feel that recently I have increased my level of quality of threads, and that you deem them more sincere and meaningful.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-05-10 at 1:28 PM UTCGUn Regulations should be run by Industry and Church leaders and if they won't sell you a gun you should be able to go across the street until you get banned from every storefront in the country
But you should also be able to privately sell anything from Muskets to Nuclear Bombs, if you have a problem with someone having something, then take it or kill them.
I don't care about what anyone has, why should I be forced to play along just because you DO care?
-
2023-05-10 at 1:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Ecto the plasm You should be shot
If you gave all the children sharp sticks and they bum rushed the attacker I bet it would work
and then if they can prove themselves with sticks, you give them a pistol
They would be too busy checking their phones to implement such a coordinated attack -
2023-05-10 at 1:30 PM UTCchecking their rounds, hopefully
-
2023-05-10 at 1:31 PM UTCI care about you, Scron. I want longevity and prosperity for you.
-
2023-05-10 at 1:33 PM UTCGive me a gun then
-
2023-05-10 at 1:36 PM UTC
-
2023-05-10 at 1:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by WellHung But the vast majority of Terror attacks involve guns, which still means more total volume of casualties in favor of the gun related terrorism acts. Aldra, you may be superior at memorizing facts and pieces of information, but your logic and reasoning does not exceed mine. TRUTH.👍🤙🤟⚘️ however, thank you for participating in my threads, lately, and I enjoy debating with you. I hope you feel that recently I have increased my level of quality of threads, and that you deem them more sincere and meaningful.
no, the point is that guns aren't required for a mass-casualty attack, and someone determined to kill a lot of people can do so with bike locks and petrol, a truck or a boxcutter.
the US isn't the only country with high levels of gun ownership, but it eclipses most similar countries in terms of gun violence (even if you remove suicides, which studies often include to inflate statistics). the UK has some of the strictest firearm restrictions in the world, but their knife violence statistics rival the US' gun violence. why do you think that is?
why do all of these mass casualty events occur in 'gun free zones'?
what happens when you graph gun violence in various states of the US vs. their levels of legal ownership?
what happens when you break down gun violence statistics by race? -
2023-05-10 at 1:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra no, the point is that guns aren't required for a mass-casualty attack, and someone determined to kill a lot of people can do so with bike locks and petrol, a truck or a boxcutter.
the US isn't the only country with high levels of gun ownership, but it eclipses most similar countries in terms of gun violence (even if you remove suicides, which studies often include to inflate statistics). the UK has some of the strictest firearm restrictions in the world, but their knife violence statistics rival the US' gun violence. why do you think that is?
why do all of these mass casualty events occur in 'gun free zones'?
what happens when you graph gun violence in various states of the US vs. their levels of legal ownership?
what happens when you break down gun violence statistics by race?
Guns are not required for a mass casualty attack, but they certainly facilitate it/make it easier. Does that concept resonate with you? As far as knife statistics in the UK ..sure they increased substantially... but still the total volume of people murdered is substantially less than gun related violence. Isn't the end game about saving lives? -
2023-05-10 at 1:49 PM UTC
-
2023-05-10 at 1:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by WellHung Guns are not required for a mass casualty attack, but they certainly facilitate it/make it easier. Does that concept resonate with you?
sure, but it doesn't really matter. guns exist and there's no practical way to make them disappear. easy access to weapons only lowers the threshold for violence to occur, at a certain point sick people in a sick society will kill each other with stones and teeth.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-05-10 at 1:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra sure, but it doesn't really matter. guns exist and there's no practical way to make them disappear. easy access to weapons only lowers the threshold for violence to occur, at a certain point sick people in a sick society will kill each other with stones and teeth.
I cudn't agree more. Well articulated. -
2023-05-10 at 1:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Ecto the plasm You can't even visualize a world outside of your warped perfect ideal of society
Anyone that doesn't want a gun is a loser/retard/faggot
That's so not true I'm very tolerant and more than willing to compromise. I respect your opposing viewpoint. You are pro-gun. There are plenty of valid reasons for owning one. I realize most gun owners are responsible ones. Whatever you may think of me, I am not rigid and unbending in my viewpoints & my ideology. I'm very teachable and coachable and will adapt my opinions in the face of new knowledge or information.
