Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Mentalcase

Gun Control Will not work!

93 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

When the next massacre occurs, I can assure you it shall not be committed through a law-abiding citizen, and that's a promise. It isn't we "want" to own a gun, it is our god-given right to do so, whether an immigrant begs to differ or not. Your opinion hasn't the slightest weight as to what happens here, nor do you possess the ability to decide what will, Watoom. People unfit to carry a firearm are denied via background checks, but sadly, many are beyond gifted upon cloaking such illnesses.

Please don't be offended by my words, I am just a firm believer of the right to conceal a firearm.

Ok slap a gun on and save the world. No really give every person a gun and see if that effects crime. To me it seems just more shootings.

You have no god given right you fool, as my right is to shoot you for not liking my god.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That is my point, I am not advocating gun eradication but gun control. There will always be accidents, deaths and stupidity but gun control is about minimising these.

Around 80-85% of the Australian population is located in urban areas, most of Australia in uninhabited.

To get a better perspective of gun related incidents we should be looking at gun deaths per capita:

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.

And once again, you people fail to see that most gun fatalities in the U.S. are done by criminals using HAND GUNS that were never registered. Yet these foreigners who have absolute no need to speak on the subject come in with their "facts" and think they know how us Americans should be effected by our own Constitution. This is the only time you will see a more Gun-Control supporters in these threads, when most of the U.S. is sleeping.

When most shootings are done with hand guns, why are politicians attacking our rights to own ARs?

Edited by CRYSiiSx2
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok slap a gun on and save the world. No really give every person a gun and see if that effects crime. To me it seems just more shootings.

You have no god given right you fool, as my right is to shoot you for not liking my god.

Not once did I mention giving every person a gun would effect crime rate, you fool, That is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I have ever read, and not to mention your skill of over analyzing my reply, but to the point of thinking I'd be one to believe in such a mediocre ideology... Next time bite your tongue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the next massacre occurs, I can assure you it shall not be committed through a law-abiding citizen, and that's a promise. It isn't we "want" to own a gun, it is our god-given right to do so, whether an immigrant begs to differ or not. Your opinion hasn't the slightest weight as to what happens here, nor do you possess the ability to decide what will, Watoom. People unfit to carry a firearm are denied via background checks, but sadly, many are beyond gifted upon cloaking such illnesses.

Please don't be offended by my words, I am just a firm believer of the right to conceal a firearm.

Even if I believed in "God" and the bible, please direct me to where it states that "God" gave you the right to own a gun.

And before you say "2nd amendment" there are many antiquated notions that do not relate to modern society. Even the whole idea of the "2nd amendment" is inherently faulty as it is an amendment, so prior to the amendment it wasn't a "God given right"... what about prior to the 13th amendment when slavery wasn't outlawed, society changed then the laws changed. Isn't this the same? society feels there is a moral/sociological reason for the change and thus an amendment is made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if I believed in "God" and the bible, please direct me to where it states that "God" gave you the right to own a gun.

And before you say "2nd amendment" there are many antiquated notions that do not relate to modern society. Even the whole idea of the "2nd amendment" is inherently faulty as it is an amendment, so prior to the amendment it wasn't a "God given right"... what about prior to the 13th amendment when slavery wasn't outlawed, society changed then the laws changed. Isn't this the same? society feels there is a moral/sociological reason for the change and thus an amendment is made.

Perhaps I should have worded it better: It is our right to bear arms. Let's not mix religion and politics, as they do not belong together, my apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not once did I mention giving every person a gun would effect crime rate, you fool, That is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I have ever read, and not to mention your skill of over analyzing my reply, but to the point of thinking I'd be one to believe in such a mediocre ideology... Next time bite your tongue.

So yet again you prove yourself a fool and think god has anything to do with guns and guns are a god givien right. Take a gun and use it. Leave god out of the gun debate as I`m sure Jesus might take issue with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Even if I believed in "God" and the bible, please direct me to where it states that "God" gave you the right to own a gun.

And before you say "2nd amendment" there are many antiquated notions that do not relate to modern society. Even the whole idea of the "2nd amendment" is inherently faulty as it is an amendment, so prior to the amendment it wasn't a "God given right"... what about prior to the 13th amendment when slavery wasn't outlawed, society changed then the laws changed. Isn't this the same? society feels there is a moral/sociological reason for the change and thus an amendment is made.

Do not blaim cars, alcohol, bats or knives for murder. They all have a purpose beside being desighned for

killing humans. Go blaim a rock or a stick.

Guns were ment to kill., nothing less and to kill humans

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And once again, you people fail to see that most gun fatalities in the U.S. are done by criminals using HAND GUNS that were never registered. Yet these foreigners who have absolute no need to speak on the subject come in with their "facts" and think they know how us Americans should be effected by our own Constitution. This is the only time you will see a more Gun-Control supporters in these threads, when most of the U.S. is sleeping.

When most shootings are done with hand guns, why are politicians attacking our rights to own ARs?

"you people" who are you referring to? as for gun violence perpetrated by criminals it is still violence with a gun as the weapon. I'm not trying to tell you what laws you should have regarding gun ownership I'm only trying to express the many other options there are to try to curb the gun related tragedies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"you people" who are you referring to? as for gun violence perpetrated by criminals it is still violence with a gun as the weapon. I'm not trying to tell you what laws you should have regarding gun ownership I'm only trying to express the many other options there are to try to curb the gun related tragedies.

My post was in agreement with yours just pointing out some foolis ideas from other posters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yet again you prove yourself a fool and think god has anything to do with guns and guns are a god givien right. Take a gun and use it. Leave god out of the gun debate as I`m sure Jesus might take issue with you.

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:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Untitled.png

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Untitled.png

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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? That’s 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 “individual”. It doesn’t register with them so they go after the implements. The solution is to return government back to its proper place.

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 couldn’t keep up with demand.

As previously stated gun control isn't about banning all guns it's about checks and balances.

But that’s 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 that’s the way it should be, not the other way around. When the POTUS was a Senator he pushed for ammo bans (of course he’s 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 – that it’ll close the gun show loophole. Hello!? What’s 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?

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 garage”, we should add “a rifle in every closet”. A gun should be part of healthcare. It is preventative medicine.

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).

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.

It is the paranoid conspiracy mentality sweeping the US (throwback the the cold war era) that is clouding many peoples judgements.

It’s not clouding judgments in this matter, it is crystal clear. It’s cloudy to you because you do not understand. And it’s 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 don’t 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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 it’s also a distraction for you, so let’s just ignore it for the moment. This is non sequitur to the main point.

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 don’t 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).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 someone’s skull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.