Another US Campus mass shooting.
Discussion
Matt Harper said:
I appreciate your sentiment regarding removing guns from public ownership - but you seem to have omitted a fairly pivotal part of the puzzle. How? If you were 'in charge' of us all, how would you practically go about confiscating all the guns?
I think it would be a massive step to even make it a bit harder to buy new guns, actively attempting to take them away from people could lead to civil unrest in some states. 
Corpulent Tosser said:
WinstonWolf said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
If I want a gun, have a use for a gun and am a law abiding citizen why should I not be able to own a gun ?
I can think of 406,496 reasons...el stovey said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
WinstonWolf said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
If I want a gun, have a use for a gun and am a law abiding citizen why should I not be able to own a gun ?
I can think of 406,496 reasons...Corpulent Tosser said:
Gun ownership is ingrained in the American way of life and a ban is not going to work there, gun control can work, but even that will have minimal effect.
Nail on the head...Edited by Corpulent Tosser on Saturday 3rd October 14:55
I think america should focus on the other issues that lead to these shootings such as mental health insted of sweeping it under the rug or trying perscribe 100s of pills that might make you worse.
At the same time i think it would solve other issues they have such as the massive amount of homeless.
Symbolica said:
creampuff said:
You can legally own some miniguns in the US. Mini, in that they are smaller than the 20mm Vulcan Phalanx (Phalanx, you should like that, it sounds like phallus) from which it is derived. It has 6 x electrically driven barrels like a gattling gun and fires 7.62 NATOs at about 6000 rounds per minute. It is the gun used to waste Hugo Weaving in the helicopter gunship scene in Matrix, though for that scene they derated the gun to about 3000 rounds per minute.
Be honest - did you get a bit of a lob-on when you were typing that?
Corpulent Tosser said:
I'm sure we would manage fine in the UK with all cars being limited to 100bhp, I don't need a gun any more than I need a car with more than 100bhp.
Doesn't mean I shouldn't want one or have a use for one.
Any analogy between guns and cars or alcohol is disingenuous at very best. Retarded is probably more accurate.Doesn't mean I shouldn't want one or have a use for one.
VX Foxy said:
We all know he did
How could I get a hard on? It's been comprehensively proven, via the previous pictures on this very thread, of Jane Fonda, tanks and cartoon pictures of machines in a orange suit wielding some enormous multi barrelled phallus umm gun, that gun owners/users have no penis. That's right, I have no penis. The gun is my penis. I only shoot guns because otherwise I would have no penis at all. Just like the other 150million gun owners have no penises. Except the women shooters. They have not penis anyway, but they want a penis, so they get a gun for the penis. 150 million people walking around with no penis!!!!! You idiots are much better value for money for promoting an ongoing tradition of gun use than joining the NRA.
VX Foxy said:
Any analogy between guns and cars or alcohol is disingenuous at very best. Retarded is probably more accurate.
And this would be because you say so, in your own opinion, not because many people use/consume cars and alcohol with no ill effects but some people misuse them and hurt themselves or others?VX Foxy said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
I'm sure we would manage fine in the UK with all cars being limited to 100bhp, I don't need a gun any more than I need a car with more than 100bhp.
Doesn't mean I shouldn't want one or have a use for one.
Any analogy between guns and cars or alcohol is disingenuous at very best. Retarded is probably more accurate.Doesn't mean I shouldn't want one or have a use for one.
Your retarded comment I will treat with the contempt it deserves.
Troubleatmill said:
Troubleatmill said:
Anyone care to defend the indefensible?
Did Corpulent have a shot at defending this?My post comparing the want for a powerful car against the need for one against the same for guns was refered to as retarded.
While I wouldn't use that expression for the content of the graph, why compare gun violence in the US to terrorism against US citizens, it is irrelevant.
Corpulent Tosser said:
Troubleatmill said:
Troubleatmill said:
Anyone care to defend the indefensible?
Did Corpulent have a shot at defending this?My post comparing the want for a powerful car against the need for one against the same for guns was refered to as retarded.
While I wouldn't use that expression for the content of the graph, why compare gun violence in the US to terrorism against US citizens, it is irrelevant.
19 Saudi's blow up a couple of buildings in New York..... and the US goes all ape all over the world, spending an annual amount - that could pretty much wipe out all poverty in the third world.
And add in 30 terrorist deaths each year... and the US still goes bat s
t crazy...30 odd thousand US citizens get wiped out annually - and they don't give a hoot.
You have to admit... it is kind of perverted,
It is a very odd mindset.
Corpulent Tosser said:
My post comparing the want for a powerful car against the need for one against the same for guns was refered to as retarded.
That's a bit harsh, but it is simplistic and one dimensional. Yes, it's making the point of want vs need, but the same can be made with cigarettes, alcohol, heroin, the age of consent etc. It requires an individual assessment of each with depth rather than making a superficial point about, 'well we are able to have what we want but not need with item X, so why not item Y?' Corpulent Tosser said:
While I wouldn't use that expression for the content of the graph, why compare gun violence in the US to terrorism against US citizens, it is irrelevant.
But it's not when you consider what the state is willing to do / the citizens are willing to accept reduce the risk and harm from terrorism. Look at the counter-terrorism legislation since 9/11 and the revelations of how intrusive the US government have been in the name of counter-terrorism. How is that rationally and objectively justified to the risk and harm caused by terrorism vs the lack of response to the risk and harm caused by firearms?
That's the point of drawing comparisons. The Americans happily sacrifice 'freedoms' and let the state heavily legislate for something that is exceptionally improbable to occur to them, but offer no such acceptance to something which is X times more likely to occur to them. The psychological and emotive side of terrorism is clearly on a different scale, but that doesn't kill you.
creampuff said:
And this would be because you say so, in your own opinion, not because many people use/consume cars and alcohol with no ill effects but some people misuse them and hurt themselves or others?
Ill give you and tosser a clue...only one of these items was designed for killing/maiming...Hard of thinking much? The analogy is ridiculous.
Corpulent Tosser said:
VX Foxy said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
I'm sure we would manage fine in the UK with all cars being limited to 100bhp, I don't need a gun any more than I need a car with more than 100bhp.
Doesn't mean I shouldn't want one or have a use for one.
Any analogy between guns and cars or alcohol is disingenuous at very best. Retarded is probably more accurate.Doesn't mean I shouldn't want one or have a use for one.
Your retarded comment I will treat with the contempt it deserves.
for firearms injuries in the ten countries with the most reported deaths from firearms for children less than 15 years of age. (CDC, 1997)
Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
Top 10 Countries: Rate per 100k
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/...
Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
Top 10 Countries: Rate per 100k
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/...
VX Foxy said:
Ill give you and tosser a clue...only one of these items was designed for killing/maiming...
Hard of thinking much? The analogy is ridiculous.
As well as having no penis and being untrustworthy due to gun use, I'm also a bit thick. Hard of thinking much? The analogy is ridiculous.
What I think you are saying is discretionary use of alcohol can't kill you because it isn't designed to kill you so the 40,000 people in the UK who die each year of alcohol related causes aren't actually dead?
Corpulent Tosser said:
el stovey said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
WinstonWolf said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
If I want a gun, have a use for a gun and am a law abiding citizen why should I not be able to own a gun ?
I can think of 406,496 reasons...VX Foxy said:
Any analogy between guns and cars or alcohol is disingenuous at very best. Retarded is probably more accurate.
Is that because you don't want to live without cars or alcohol but don't have an interest in guns.How many people die in the UK as a result of either drinking alcohol or at the hands of someone else who's drunk alcohol? Yes, the majority use it sensibly and enjoy it but many don't.
We don't need alcohol. But it's part of our culture and you could never ban it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff