Jump to content

What is better, no guns, or more guns?


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Figster said:

The devils advocate pays for it...

Which would be you.

 

Which would be those against the Constitution

 

Maybe if those who hated freedom and the Constitution put their money where their mouth was and offered opportunities to deal with these issues there would be headway.

 

Either way, sup hypocrite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Figster said:

How about track the guns with a GPS tracking system and any gun without a tracking device gets destroyed along with a hefty fine and or jail time for tampering and removal.

 

Its practically impossiple to track all the lunatics so track the guns.

 

Because real life doesn't work that way.  GPS tells you where YOU are.  It doesn't tell you where other stuff is.  

 

People watch too many !@#$ing movies.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boyst62 said:

Which would be you.

 

Which would be those against the Constitution

 

Maybe if those who hated freedom and the Constitution put their money where their mouth was and offered opportunities to deal with these issues there would be headway.

 

Either way, sup hypocrite?

I watched an episode of Judge Judy not to long ago where an older fella had put an antique rifle in what basically amounted to a consignment shop the way i viewed it only to have it mysteriously stolen. The store owner/manager claimed she wasn't responsible and Judy ruled in her favor.

 

I'm normally in agreement with Judge Judy,

 

Whats struck me more though Jeff is how easily the gun walks right out the door and into the hands of a criminal.

 

The root of the problem.

 

with all due respect to you , Tasker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Figster said:

I watched an episode of Judge Judy not to long ago where an older fella had put an antique rifle in what basically amounted to a consignment shop the way i viewed it only to have it mysteriously stolen. The store owner/manager claimed she wasn't responsible and Judy ruled in her favor.

 

I'm normally in agreement with Judge Judy,

 

Whats struck me more though Jeff is how easily the gun walks right out the door and into the hands of a criminal.

 

The root of the problem.

 

with all due respect to you , Tasker

there are about 4040049414 things wrong with this story.

 

1) you were watching judge judy.  it should end there, but i will assume you were getting your car inspected or other work done in which the waiting room had the television showing this.

 

2) the consignment shop should be held legally liable for allowing a firearm to be left unsecured - clearly, it was.

 

3) insurance through the shop should have covered the item

 

5) the argument must have been piss poor to hold the consignment not guilty.

 

27) that gun being in the hands of anyone is now criminal for possession of stolen goods

 

4040047441) there was nothing that could have been done to stop the theft of that gun with respect to the gun owner

 

4040049413) the root of the problem is not the gun owner, the consignment shop, or judge judy.  the root of the problem is the desire of the thief.

 

4040049414) @26CornerBlitz 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

there are about 4040049414 things wrong with this story.

 

1) you were watching judge judy.  it should end there, but i will assume you were getting your car inspected or other work done in which the waiting room had the television showing this.

 

2) the consignment shop should be held legally liable for allowing a firearm to be left unsecured - clearly, it was.

 

3) insurance through the shop should have covered the item

 

5) the argument must have been piss poor to hold the consignment not guilty.

 

27) that gun being in the hands of anyone is now criminal for possession of stolen goods

 

4040047441) there was nothing that could have been done to stop the theft of that gun with respect to the gun owner

 

4040049413) the root of the problem is not the gun owner, the consignment shop, or judge judy.  the root of the problem is the desire of the thief.

 

4040049414) @26CornerBlitz 

 The gun was in the owners gun cabinet under lock and key was Judge Judy's reasoning, 

 

The cabinet failed to secure the item safely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Figster said:

 If you get caught without the proper tracking device one more gun is removed from the streets. 

 

The tracking device would be attatched to the barrel IMO, because a bullet can be matched up with the barrel.

 

 

 

Bro, how’s shooting not going to destroy this GPS? Think about it mechanically....c’mon, man! Second, why would I put one on my weapon if opposed to it? I will literally lock and load over this and begin killing. There are many like me. I will kill any government agent that attempts to force me to modify my property so as to be subject to continuous government surveillance. What you’re proposing is impossible and inpractical. Now, outlawing the sale and manufacture of 80% lowers is on the table. 

2 hours ago, Justice said:

I came up with the same idea not too long ago and it was shot down by posters I respect. Was told that GPS doesn’t work that way. 

 

....what good would it do to prevent these? 

 

When people do this they plan to get caught and typically go out shooting or killing themselves. A GPS isn’t going to sway them not to. And how do you think you’ll force me to put them in my guns? And who’s going to pay for them? And how will they survive the onslaught of explosions....a gun is an instrument that allows you to make an explosion in your hands and not get hurt.....how is your GPS going to survive that? And where do you get the authority to monitor and conduct surveillance on me and my property? Cause I got lots of guns that says you can’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Figster said:

 The gun was in the owners gun cabinet under lock and key was Judge Judy's reasoning, 

 

The cabinet failed to secure the item safely.

oh i forgot that point, if it was secured than by judy's standard the gun owner can file suit against the architects, the construction company, the safe company, the security alarm company.

 

personal responsibility in the courts is so wildly ignored it saddens me

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

 

Bro, how’s shooting not going to destroy this GPS? Think about it mechanically....c’mon, man! Second, why would I put one on my weapon if opposed to it? I will literally lock and load over this and begin killing. There are many like me. I will kill any government agent that attempts to force me to modify my property so as to be subject to continuous government surveillance. What you’re proposing is impossible and inpractical. Now, outlawing the sale and manufacture of 80% lowers is on the table. 

I can understand where you are coming from, but lets say this GPS monitoring system keeps your movements private until you cross over onto School grounds.

 

Sounds off an alarm.

 

It does seem impossible, inpractical, true that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Figster said:

I can understand where you are coming from, but lets say this GPS monitoring system keeps your movements private until you cross over onto School grounds.

 

Sounds off an alarm.

 

It does seem impossible, inpractical, true that.

i could be 500 yards from an object and still use a gun effectively.  most could.

 

and most shootings dont occur at schools. they're at private homes.  and even if you talked me in to GPS on the guns then you won't talk me in to gps on my private property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KW95 said:

How many of you clowns been broken into or attacked by a gun wielding thug?

 

Answer honestly and then tell me how you having a gun in your house is called protecting yourself....FROM WHAT?

 

what is your point?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

i could be 500 yards from an object and still use a gun effectively.  most could.

 

and most shootings dont occur at schools. they're at private homes.  and even if you talked me in to GPS on the guns then you won't talk me in to gps on my private property.

If I could get you into metal detecting, GPS might come in handy on your big property. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KW95 said:

How many of you clowns been broken into or attacked by a gun wielding thug?

 

Answer honestly and then tell me how you having a gun in your house is called protecting yourself....FROM WHAT?

 

Guns in every household keeps this from happening.

Edited by Figster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Figster said:

If I could get you into metal detecting, GPS might come in handy on your big property. 

i'm thinking about blacksmithing now.

 

one of these days i'll realize thinking of hobbies is not an adequate hobby.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Figster said:

I can understand where you are coming from, but lets say this GPS monitoring system keeps your movements private until you cross over onto School grounds.

 

Sounds off an alarm.

 

It does seem impossible, inpractical, true that.

 

The mechanics aren’t there. How is the bang of the gun not gonna break a GPS. People are hard on guns. Then there’s the cost....you’re telling me I have to pay for something expensive to put on my guns and I have to trust the government? Nope. Not gonna fly. Ain’t gonna work. Not practical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Figster said:

Guns in every household keeps this from happing.

 

Nope!  Nope they don't!  You see, I live in a Third world country and most average citizens don't have guns in theirs houses!  I have been broken into when I was in bed sleeping with my family.  Guess what. Having a gun in my hand was the last thing I wanted!  

 

Most criminals don't want to kill anyone.  But you having a gun just increased the chance of someone getting killed.

 

Finally, this has nothing to do with you having a gun.  The criminals are not after your TV or Cellphone.  If you aren't involved in Criminal Activities, there is a good chance in your lifetime you will never get invaded.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, KW95 said:

How many of you clowns been broken into or attacked by a gun wielding thug?

 

Answer honestly and then tell me how you having a gun in your house is called protecting yourself....FROM WHAT?

 

 

Define "attacked."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KW95 said:

I live in a Third world country

Detroit?

 

7 minutes ago, KW95 said:

 

If you aren't involved in Criminal Activities, there is a good chance in your lifetime you will never get invaded.

 

 

There is a good chance that I will never have a fire but I still own a fire extinguisher

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Define "attacked."

 

Sitting at home, watching TV or Sleeping and someone  invaded your house.

 

Waiting at the bus station and a motorbike pulls over and puts a gun to your head and asks for your wallet and cellphone or purse.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, /dev/null said:

Detroit?

 

 

There is a good chance that I will never have a fire but I still own a fire extinguisher

 

Detroit!  hahah

 

Really?  How many people own an extinguisher?  Is it mandatory in the States?

 

 

Just now, /dev/null said:

I've been mugged at gunpoint

 

and if you had a gun, would you have the chance to pull it out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

No, fire extinguishers are not mandatory. Neither are firearms, retard.

 

Retard?  Did you just call me a retard?

 

What are you, 7 years old?  

 

Go !@#$ yourself retard!  That's how you say it here and fire a couple rounds in the air!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

:lol::lol:

 

The irony is incredible. This person is calling to give the state the power to murder lawful people in order to steal their possessions in order to prevent people from being murdered.

 

That's pretty much the entire purpose of the second amendment. 

 

We need to ensure people like that twat never get the chance to live out their ideology. By any means necessary 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heard this on Facebook and I wanted to share it. I’m sure you guys will have a rebuttal and that’s why I want to share it.  Here it goes:

 

North Korea should have nukes because nukes don’t kill people. People kill people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the legal right in the state of NY via my permit to own.Let somebody knock out my security system,break in like a church mouse/group of rats and within seconds death would happen.Our Pitbull is great for security but she can't put a bullet in a scumbag of two or three faces like my pistol and right hand can.I will kill before I would allow filth to gang rape my bride and steal my possessions that we have worked so hard for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, there is a lot to say about looking into WHY these guys did what they did. Not, just bitching about the fact they did what they did. 

 

Finding the motives and taking those away is the best way to deal with crap like this.

 

I still think that if half these shooters were forced to go to church (non-muslim/non-radical) then the problem wouldn't exist. These kids reach their breaking point. They are broke by their peers and their environment, then cast aside by society. Animosity builds up and they seek revenge. Most even say as much before or after they do what they do.

 

I hate sympathizing with criminals, but when those who commit the crimes are kids I tend to look at those around them for blame. In this case, it is hard not to point out the COMPLETE AND UTTER failure of law enforcement/FBI/schools. 

 

Sure, making guns harder to get will reduce school shootings, but it'd likely increase school bombings/sword attacks/car attacks. No, the "American problem" is that kids are cunts, and the weak break. 

Edited by Paulus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Honestly, there is a lot to say about looking into WHY these guys did what they did. Not, just bitching about the fact they did what they did. 

 

Finding the motives and taking those away is the best way to deal with crap like this.

 

I still think that if half these shooters were forced to go to church (non-muslim/non-radical) then the problem wouldn't exist. These kids reach their breaking point. They are broke by their peers and their environment, then cast aside by society. Animosity builds up and they seek revenge. Most even say as much before or after they do what they do.

 

I hate sympathizing with criminals, but when those who commit the crimes are kids I tend to look at those around them for blame. In this case, it is hard not to point out the COMPLETE AND UTTER failure of law enforcement/FBI/schools. 

 

Sure, making guns harder to get will reduce school shootings, but it'd likely increase school bombings/sword attacks/car attacks. No, the "American problem" is that kids are cunts, and the weak break. 

Care to elaborate? 

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Image result for stupid reaction gif

Gifs are nice, but how about a verbal response? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Honestly, there is a lot to say about looking into WHY these guys did what they did. Not, just bitching about the fact they did what they did. 

 

Finding the motives and taking those away is the best way to deal with crap like this.

 

I still think that if half these shooters were forced to go to church (non-muslim/non-radical) then the problem wouldn't exist. These kids reach their breaking point. They are broke by their peers and their environment, then cast aside by society. Animosity builds up and they seek revenge. Most even say as much before or after they do what they do.

 

I hate sympathizing with criminals, but when those who commit the crimes are kids I tend to look at those around them for blame. In this case, it is hard not to point out the COMPLETE AND UTTER failure of law enforcement/FBI/schools. 

 

Sure, making guns harder to get will reduce school shootings, but it'd likely increase school bombings/sword attacks/car attacks. No, the "American problem" is that kids are cunts, and the weak break. 

 

It’s way harder today for the youngsters than when I finished undergrad studies in 1991.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Justice said:

Heard this on Facebook and I wanted to share it. I’m sure you guys will have a rebuttal and that’s why I want to share it.  Here it goes:

 

North Korea should have nukes because nukes don’t kill people. People kill people. 

It’s ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...