Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

Gun Control Will not work!

gun control guns control 2nd amendment

  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#61    CRYSiiSx2

CRYSiiSx2

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 564 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 16 April 2013 - 04:55 AM

You want stats?  Let's look here, straight from the FBI:
Posted Image

So given this from 2011 we have a total of 12,664 murder victims by weapon.  So according to these facts (I'll trust these more than any 3rd party website guys decide to throw out there) only 0.03%, rounded up of course, were murdered by rifle.  Now of course an AR is considered a rifle so I'm wondering here, why are people attacking the rights of gun owners who like to own an AR-15, AK-74, or whatever semi-automatic rifle they desire?  Don't know.

Not only that let's just look at how about 13% are murdered by knives.  Now wow, we really need to worry about rifles after seeing this.  Now I'm sure the topic will be turned around on how many hand gun murders there are, and yet no one will consider the fact that you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and background checks are done on these.  But guess what?  Almost all of murders commited by hand gun are done by criminals who are carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, and obtained their hand gun illegally in the first place.

So now I ask, do you really think universal background checks are going to make criminals who obtain their weapons illegally in the first place give two ****s about a universal background check?  Hell no.  Criminals are the ones pushing for these laws because they're still going to be getting their guns just fine, as the law abiding public will be paying more money to obtain theirs, lawfully, or not being able to afford to have them at all.

Posted Image
NRA - PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT
my twitter @sktm06

#62    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,012 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 16 April 2013 - 04:56 AM

View PostCollateral Damage, on 16 April 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:


Who said I'm a follower of Christianity? Such is a fool's assumption, as there are many religions where Jesus isn't "god," nice try, though. Really, if you must resort to insulting for a method of getting your point across, that's quite pathetic. It's expected, however, I'm loving that ego. :whistle:

Your the one that brought god into it.  Your right, Jesus is not dog, or god nore is any other man made fiction.  Can you tell me what god ment as it was our right to own weapons.  Your offence to my question and your fast recall on that jesus is not god leaves me with a fealing you are a muslim. I`f I`m wrong so be it.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#63    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,012 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 16 April 2013 - 04:59 AM

View PostCRYSiiSx2, on 16 April 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

You want stats?  Let's look here, straight from the FBI:
Posted Image

So given this from 2011 we have a total of 12,664 murder victims by weapon.  So according to these facts (I'll trust these more than any 3rd party website guys decide to throw out there) only 0.03%, rounded up of course, were murdered by rifle.  Now of course an AR is considered a rifle so I'm wondering here, why are people attacking the rights of gun owners who like to own an AR-15, AK-74, or whatever semi-automatic rifle they desire?  Don't know.

Not only that let's just look at how about 13% are murdered by knives.  Now wow, we really need to worry about rifles after seeing this.  Now I'm sure the topic will be turned around on how many hand gun murders there are, and yet no one will consider the fact that you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and background checks are done on these.  But guess what?  Almost all of murders commited by hand gun are done by criminals who are carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, and obtained their hand gun illegally in the first place.

So now I ask, do you really think universal background checks are going to make criminals who obtain their weapons illegally in the first place give two ****s about a universal background check?  Hell no.  Criminals are the ones pushing for these laws because they're still going to be getting their guns just fine, as the law abiding public will be paying more money to obtain theirs, lawfully, or not being able to afford to have them at all.


How many mass murders happen with knives and rocks

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#64    CRYSiiSx2

CRYSiiSx2

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 564 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 16 April 2013 - 05:06 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 16 April 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

How many mass murders happen with knives and rocks

You didn't even bother to watch the video this thread showed on the first post did you?  The same day Sandy Hook happened in China some psycho went around and slashed over 20 kids at the gates of a school.  How about the Osaka school massacre?  Because there are a very select few psychos willing to commit mass murder, you take away the whole the population of a country's 2nd Amendment?

Edited by CRYSiiSx2, 16 April 2013 - 05:07 AM.

Posted Image
NRA - PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT
my twitter @sktm06

#65    Collateral Damage

Collateral Damage

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 228 posts
  • Joined:30 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In midst with the Sands of Time.

  • "Anti-Americanism is a pure totalitarian concept. The very notion is idiotic."

Posted 16 April 2013 - 05:07 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 16 April 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

Your the one that brought god into it.  Your right, Jesus is not dog, or god nore is any other man made fiction.  Can you tell me what god ment as it was our right to own weapons.  Your offence to my question and your fast recall on that jesus is not god leaves me with a fealing you are a muslim. I`f I`m wrong so be it.
You are wrong. I do not follow a religion, and to believe in god doesn't make you religious, in case you didn't know.

Religion (noun):
- The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.


   I worship no one, as I believe everyone to be equal (that is my god-given right: to be equal). Just as I believe if one so desires to be a gun owner, and of course, through a valid background check only, they should be able to do so. You jumped to conclusion without asking first and resorted to insulting for having a belief that differs yours, which is very asinine, in my opinion. Maybe that's just me, though.

Edited by Collateral Damage, 16 April 2013 - 05:09 AM.

Undated letter from J.F.K. said:

   "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."

      "The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten."

#66    Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Heaven Is A Halfpipe

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • Hi. My name is Spike.

Posted 16 April 2013 - 01:59 PM

Taking away guns is a BAD thing? C'mon...

You can go the distance, you can run the mile and you can walk straight through HELL with a smile.

My UM Credentials: http://www.unexplain...5


#67    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,425 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011

Posted 16 April 2013 - 03:03 PM

View PostStellar, on 15 April 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

I'm saying that specific line of argument is settled. You can't on one hand claim that gun control won't work because people will always be able to criminally obtain weapons, and then on the other hand tell people that they are against gun control because they won't have guns to fight the government of it becomes tyrannical.

No it is not.  You’re just not getting it and neither is the government.  For one, there are other ways to acquire firearms that is not criminal.  Firearms are plentiful to the resourceful.  And that’s beside the point.  The point is infringement (in the FIRST PLACE!).  The demonizing of the lawful gun owner by trying to pull the wool over our eyes in saying that back ground checks will stop gun violence (which is generically pointed at the legal gun owner), then later backing off stating that it will only make it harder.  And even *harder* is inaccurate.  It’s not going to phase the problem one bit, because the criminal can acquire a gun by other means, meanwhile the law abiding citizen gets disarmed.  That is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.  No, you don’t need 10 rounds to kill a deer, you need 10 rounds to kill the tyrannical politician.


#68    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,425 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011

Posted 16 April 2013 - 03:14 PM

View Postwatoom, on 16 April 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

Nothing can completely prevent such events but at the very least there should be an effort curb them and gun control obviously shouldn't be the be all and end all solution but should be just one part of a multi-faceted solution.
The old college try eh?  Thatís the excuse of dictators.  Common Sense tells you that by taking guns away will not curb it.  The problem is still with the individual.  The Left has a conceptual problem with the term ďindividualĒ.  It doesnít register with them so they go after the implements.  The solution is to return government back to its proper place.

Quote

If you say criminals can illegally acquire guns then in the event the populous needs guns to "protect themselves from a tyrannous Government" it won't be hard for them to get their hands on them.
You and several others here miss the point.  If firearms have been confiscated then they are not in hand.  Supply in demand would cause a delay to react giving the government an advantage.  This is the whole point of the 2nd; to assure that the population remains armed at all times and in quantities that prevents government getting the upper hand.  The criminal can surely get a gun by any means at anytime.  The law abiding citizen can also, except not in the number needed.  It would take a reverse Fast&Furious or like in the Revolutionary War, shipments of tons of muskets from France.  The American gun smiths made better weapons but they couldnít keep up with demand.

Quote

As previously stated gun control isn't about banning all guns it's about checks and balances.
But thatís what it will effectively do.  Checks and balances apply to oversight on the government, not on the people.  This is an indication that the government fears the people and thatís the way it should be, not the other way around.  When the POTUS was a Senator he pushed for ammo bans (of course heís not trying to take away our fancy clubs), under the POTUS, DHS demonized vets that owned guns and believed in GOD.  Now he has issued 23 separate gun control executive orders very reminiscent to the Nuremburg Gun Laws of 1928.  The current legislation requires doctors to violate doctor-patient confidentiality.  No one hears about that, just what the government want you to hear Ė that itíll close the gun show loophole.  Hello!?  Whatís the history of guns acquired from gun shows by (then) crazy people that have been used in mass shootings?  The Left puts out terms like criminal and crazy but when the individual acquired the gun from a gun show, were they such?

Quote

The average person does not need auto/semi-auto guns,
But the average person does need at least a semi.  To borrow from the Coolidge/Hoover era, "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garageĒ, we should add ďa rifle in every closetĒ.  A gun should be part of healthcare.  It is preventative medicine.

Quote

if there is a need eg. the person is target shooter then surely they should be required to be a registered member of a gun club and and partake in a set amount of competitions per year as well as having the weapons stored in an approved safes etc.
The need is not target shooting or GSA approved safes.  The need is to possess a deterrent to oppressive government (real time).

Quote

I legally own guns and enjoy shooting but I feel there is no need for machine/assault guns.
The need to own such weapons is blatantly obvious (especially today) but I would suggest only those that can properly maintain them take on the responsibility.

Quote

It is the paranoid conspiracy mentality sweeping the US (throwback the the cold war era) that is clouding many peoples judgements.
Itís not clouding judgments in this matter, it is crystal clear.  Itís cloudy to you because you do not understand.  And itís a throwback to the Founding Fathers.  It was their paranoia in the first place that broke the shackles of slavery.  They understood that any and all government over time becomes more and more oppressive no matter how benevolent it starts off.  This one is no different.  They provided us a means to correct that.  Now we have been lucky so far because we are currently in the 5th Party system in this country.  This periodic changing has been a bloodless coop every time.  And that has kept the government from getting too powerful over the people.  I just donít see that happening this time.  I think the people will have to purge the ranks to put government back in its place.  The ballot has failed; the ruling elite can too easily manipulate the electorate.

Edited by RavenHawk, 16 April 2013 - 03:34 PM.


#69    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,577 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 16 April 2013 - 03:49 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 16 April 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:


No it is not.  You’re just not getting it and neither is the government.  For one, there are other ways to acquire firearms that is not criminal.  Firearms are plentiful to the resourceful.  And that’s beside the point.  The point is infringement (in the FIRST PLACE!).  The demonizing of the lawful gun owner by trying to pull the wool over our eyes in saying that back ground checks will stop gun violence (which is generically pointed at the legal gun owner), then later backing off stating that it will only make it harder.  And even *harder* is inaccurate.  It’s not going to phase the problem one bit, because the criminal can acquire a gun by other means, meanwhile the law abiding citizen gets disarmed.  That is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.  No, you don’t need 10 rounds to kill a deer, you need 10 rounds to kill the tyrannical politician.

No, you're not getting it. I'm not talking about the "infringement" line of arguments. I'm commenting specifically on the argument I've heard people use that says that they wont have guns to fight a tyrant government if gun control is put in place.

Quote

The need is to possess a deterrent to oppressive government (real time).

If gun control doesn't stop people that want guns from getting it, how is it a deterrent to oppressive government? Explain to me that. THAT is what I don't see the logic in. If gun control wont stop you from getting a gun to fight which you can use to fight the government, then how is gun control going to stop you from fighting a tyrant government?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#70    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,425 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011

Posted 16 April 2013 - 04:27 PM

View PostStellar, on 16 April 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

No, you're not getting it. I'm not talking about the "infringement" line of arguments. I'm commenting specifically on the argument I've heard people use that says that they wont have guns to fight a tyrant government if gun control is put in place.
Oh, I get it.  Infringement is part of it, but for now itís also a distraction for you, so letís just ignore it for the moment.  This is non sequitur to the main point.

Quote

If gun control doesn't stop people that want guns from getting it, how is it a deterrent to oppressive government? Explain to me that. THAT is what I don't see the logic in. If gun control wont stop you from getting a gun to fight which you can use to fight the government, then how is gun control going to stop you from fighting a tyrant government?
If you stop people from legally getting guns or even start (effectively) taking guns away, then that means that they donít have access to them in *real time*.  Which means that it will take time to acquire them by other means.  Time that they may not have.  Now, for the criminal, this may not be such an obstacle.  And the criminal does not need a weapon in the same way a law abiding citizen does.  But for the law abiding citizen to observe the intent of the 2nd Amendment, this delay in acquiring a firearm gives the oppressive government the initiative.  The point being that the initiative should remain in the hands of the people.  And an individual here or there may be able to replenish a confiscated weapon in time but the body of the whole cannot be separated from their continual possession for the strict purpose of deterrent (the original intent of the 2nd Amendment).


#71    Dark_Grey

Dark_Grey

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,331 posts
  • Joined:08 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

  • if (empty($universe)) {
    include 'reality.php';
    }

Posted 16 April 2013 - 05:13 PM

View Postwatoom, on 16 April 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

Australia - 1.05 deaths per 100,000
USA - 10.20 deaths per 100,000

So the USA has roughly 10x the amount of gun related incidents compared with Aust.

Wow - 10x the amount of gun related deaths? That's all the more reason to own one, considering how many criminals are running around with illegal firearms. Didn't realize it was that bad. Thanks for the heads up!

Exploring your own consciousness is the fundamental right of every individual

Locking people in a cage because they choose to exercise that right should be considered a crime against humanity


#72    Dark_Grey

Dark_Grey

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,331 posts
  • Joined:08 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

  • if (empty($universe)) {
    include 'reality.php';
    }

Posted 16 April 2013 - 05:21 PM

View PostHeaven Is A Halfpipe, on 16 April 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

Taking away guns is a BAD thing? C'mon...

That statement is so incredibly shallow and naive I'm tempted to consider it a trolling attempt.

Exploring your own consciousness is the fundamental right of every individual

Locking people in a cage because they choose to exercise that right should be considered a crime against humanity


#73    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,855 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 16 April 2013 - 05:29 PM

The President and CEO of Pennsylvania's Planned Parenthood has stated that stricter and/or more regulations will not keep things like what happened at Gosnell's clinic because regulations will not stop someone like Dr. Gosnell.

I completely agree.

The same logic is completely applicable to the gun-control debate.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#74    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,425 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011

Posted 16 April 2013 - 05:34 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 16 April 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

The same logic is completely applicable to the gun-control debate.
Or IEDs.  Or a running man with a knife.  Or driving a car into a crowd.  Or using a baseball bat to crush someoneís skull.


#75    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,855 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 16 April 2013 - 05:40 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 16 April 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

Or IEDs.  Or a running man with a knife.  Or driving a car into a crowd.  Or using a baseball bat to crush someone's skull.
Exactly.  That's why we should judge the actions, or attempted actions of individuals, not regulate the rights of innocent individuals.  Regulations will not keep the crazies from doing crazy stuff.

Edited by IamsSon, 16 April 2013 - 05:42 PM.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users