But if you want to call me a pussy to my face, let's set that up.
Calling BS on the face off without referencing the designated meating place (7-11 on Aurora in the U-District, where I've pummel-fucked Slices and Topdawg on more occassions than I can imagine).
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
"Shall not be infringed" and I had a good laugh at this.
Where's your fully automatic weapon or tank? A background check is not an infringement.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
I guess 9/11 and those 4,000 people were just a rounding error too?
You put an awful lot of words in my mouth. Nice work.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
So what you are saying. That banning all guns wouldn't do anything. So we should just do nothing at all.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
I guess 9/11 and those 4,000 people were just a rounding error too?
You put an awful lot of words in my mouth. Nice work.
Maybe we should make hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings illegal as well.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
I guess 9/11 and those 4,000 people were just a rounding error too?
You put an awful lot of words in my mouth. Nice work.
Maybe we should make hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings illegal as well.
Actually it already is. And I'm sure you'd think that's an infringement on your rights too.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
"Shall not be infringed" and I had a good laugh at this.
Where's your fully automatic weapon or tank? A background check is not an infringement.
HTH
That you would believe it isn't is absurd. Though not surprising.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
I guess 9/11 and those 4,000 people were just a rounding error too?
You put an awful lot of words in my mouth. Nice work.
It actually is a rounding error.
When you consider the number of people who die everyday for what ever reason.
You bring up a good point.
Those 4,000 people (and you are rounding up), were killed by a group of people who hijacked a plane.
Think about the logistics and thought that had to go into that process. All the regulation around getting a pilots license, all the security around airplanes, all the national intelligence used to protect citizens.
Yet in one three hour span they killed the equivalent of 60% of people who die by handgun every year.
So take your emotion, and shove it up your ass.
Root cause is not guns, it is crazy mother fuckers who are out to kill people in spectacular fashion.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
So what you are saying. That banning all guns wouldn't do anything. So we should just do nothing at all.
Do you realize how silly that statement is?
No, I realize no such thing, because it's not silly at all.
Banning guns wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are too many fucking guns out there, and people want to have them. So they will.
Like prohibition, all you'd do is create a rather robust and frothy black market for guns. Moreover, you'd incentivize people desperate for them to hurt, mame or even kill other people who have them in the process of stealing them.
No, Sandy Hook happens, Va. Tech happens, Columbine happens, Marysville Pilchuck (by fucking definition this very fucking week) happens ... all of them happen with a full-on gun ban.
You probably think telling kids to practice abstinence or they'll go to hell will curb the # of abortions.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
So what you are saying. That banning all guns wouldn't do anything. So we should just do nothing at all.
Do you realize how silly that statement is?
No, I realize no such thing, because it's not silly at all.
Banning guns wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are too many fucking guns out there, and people want to have them. So they will.
Like prohibition, all you'd do is create a rather robust and frothy black market for guns. Moreover, you'd incentivize people desperate for them to hurt, mame or even kill other people who have them in the process of stealing them.
No, Sandy Hook happens, Va. Tech happens, Columbine happens, Marysville Pilchuck (by fucking definition this very fucking week) happens ... all of them happen with a full-on gun ban.
You probably think telling kids to practice abstinence or they'll go to hell will curb the # of abortions.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
So what you are saying. That banning all guns wouldn't do anything. So we should just do nothing at all.
Do you realize how silly that statement is?
No, I realize no such thing, because it's not silly at all.
Banning guns wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are too many fucking guns out there, and people want to have them. So they will.
Like prohibition, all you'd do is create a rather robust and frothy black market for guns. Moreover, you'd incentivize people desperate for them to hurt, mame or even kill other people who have them in the process of stealing them.
No, Sandy Hook happens, Va. Tech happens, Columbine happens, Marysville Pilchuck (by fucking definition this very fucking week) happens ... all of them happen with a full-on gun ban.
You probably think telling kids to practice abstinence or they'll go to hell will curb the # of abortions.
Fuck, turn the light on dude.
Note that's funny. You clearly don't get what I said. In no way did I say we should ban one gun. Your argument is that if we banned guns, it won't fix the problem. Given that concept, we should just do nothing.
Or another argument is that we shouldn't do anything because people will still die.
There are practical things we can do to save lives. That will not infringe on our rights. But you ignore them on false Rush Limbaugh talking points.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
So what you are saying. That banning all guns wouldn't do anything. So we should just do nothing at all.
Do you realize how silly that statement is?
No, I realize no such thing, because it's not silly at all.
Banning guns wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are too many fucking guns out there, and people want to have them. So they will.
Like prohibition, all you'd do is create a rather robust and frothy black market for guns. Moreover, you'd incentivize people desperate for them to hurt, mame or even kill other people who have them in the process of stealing them.
No, Sandy Hook happens, Va. Tech happens, Columbine happens, Marysville Pilchuck (by fucking definition this very fucking week) happens ... all of them happen with a full-on gun ban.
You probably think telling kids to practice abstinence or they'll go to hell will curb the # of abortions.
Fuck, turn the light on dude.
Those incidents don't happen nearly as much in countries with more restrictive gun laws. Please don't say that people will just use knives instead either. You're smarter than that.
There's overwhelming popular support for common sense gun laws. That might hurt the ammo and NRA lobby though.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
So what you are saying. That banning all guns wouldn't do anything. So we should just do nothing at all.
Do you realize how silly that statement is?
No, I realize no such thing, because it's not silly at all.
Banning guns wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are too many fucking guns out there, and people want to have them. So they will.
Like prohibition, all you'd do is create a rather robust and frothy black market for guns. Moreover, you'd incentivize people desperate for them to hurt, mame or even kill other people who have them in the process of stealing them.
No, Sandy Hook happens, Va. Tech happens, Columbine happens, Marysville Pilchuck (by fucking definition this very fucking week) happens ... all of them happen with a full-on gun ban.
You probably think telling kids to practice abstinence or they'll go to hell will curb the # of abortions.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
So what you are saying. That banning all guns wouldn't do anything. So we should just do nothing at all.
Do you realize how silly that statement is?
No, I realize no such thing, because it's not silly at all.
Banning guns wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are too many fucking guns out there, and people want to have them. So they will.
Like prohibition, all you'd do is create a rather robust and frothy black market for guns. Moreover, you'd incentivize people desperate for them to hurt, mame or even kill other people who have them in the process of stealing them.
No, Sandy Hook happens, Va. Tech happens, Columbine happens, Marysville Pilchuck (by fucking definition this very fucking week) happens ... all of them happen with a full-on gun ban.
You probably think telling kids to practice abstinence or they'll go to hell will curb the # of abortions.
Fuck, turn the light on dude.
Those incidents don't happen nearly as much in countries with more restrictive gun laws. Please don't say that people will just use knives instead either. You're smarter than that.
There's overwhelming popular support for common sense gun laws. That might hurt the ammo and NRA lobby though.
there is a complex millieu of factors for those statistics that will take a team of Harvard psychs, sociologists and anthropologists years to understand. and before they get started, nothing in Scandinavia counts in this discussion because there are like 8 people there, and they're all the same. the U.S. has become a breeding ground for crazy; we've got more pockets of looney than anywhere not technically located in the Middle East. that, to me, is the more germaine issue: the prevalence of untreated mental illness and alienation that exists among young (late teens to mid 40s) men in this country that make them want to do shit like this.
the point is, it is what it is, and there are millions and millions of weapons out there and people are not going to start lining up and turning them in when you get your way. they're just not going to do it. what will happen is that you're going to create a nice black market on which alienated and depressed bananas will buy guns from crack/meth heads for $65.00 who stole them from their uncle Mitch when he was passed out on the couch in his double wide in Bumblefuck Snohomish County.
I don't know why this happens less often in Europe proper, and I know you don't either. The simplicity of stricter gun laws is a nice explanation, but thoughtful people know it's much more complicated, historical, cultural and subtle than just that one thing.
Some day maybe that's where the US will evolve to in its advance as a national culture. You're not, however, going to accelerate that kind evolution by passing sweeping gun control laws.
Comments
HTH
You put an awful lot of words in my mouth. Nice work.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
Do you realize how silly that statement is?
When you consider the number of people who die everyday for what ever reason.
You bring up a good point.
Those 4,000 people (and you are rounding up), were killed by a group of people who hijacked a plane.
Think about the logistics and thought that had to go into that process. All the regulation around getting a pilots license, all the security around airplanes, all the national intelligence used to protect citizens.
Yet in one three hour span they killed the equivalent of 60% of people who die by handgun every year.
So take your emotion, and shove it up your ass.
Root cause is not guns, it is crazy mother fuckers who are out to kill people in spectacular fashion.
I'm not so much of an asshole that I pretend to know what's best for others.
You are though.
Banning guns wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are too many fucking guns out there, and people want to have them. So they will.
Like prohibition, all you'd do is create a rather robust and frothy black market for guns. Moreover, you'd incentivize people desperate for them to hurt, mame or even kill other people who have them in the process of stealing them.
No, Sandy Hook happens, Va. Tech happens, Columbine happens, Marysville Pilchuck (by fucking definition this very fucking week) happens ... all of them happen with a full-on gun ban.
You probably think telling kids to practice abstinence or they'll go to hell will curb the # of abortions.
Fuck, turn the light on dude.
Fuck ...
Or another argument is that we shouldn't do anything because people will still die.
There are practical things we can do to save lives. That will not infringe on our rights. But you ignore them on false Rush Limbaugh talking points.
He does seem pretty scary. At least you know he wouldn't be armed.
There's overwhelming popular support for common sense gun laws. That might hurt the ammo and NRA lobby though.
the point is, it is what it is, and there are millions and millions of weapons out there and people are not going to start lining up and turning them in when you get your way. they're just not going to do it. what will happen is that you're going to create a nice black market on which alienated and depressed bananas will buy guns from crack/meth heads for $65.00 who stole them from their uncle Mitch when he was passed out on the couch in his double wide in Bumblefuck Snohomish County.
I don't know why this happens less often in Europe proper, and I know you don't either. The simplicity of stricter gun laws is a nice explanation, but thoughtful people know it's much more complicated, historical, cultural and subtle than just that one thing.
Some day maybe that's where the US will evolve to in its advance as a national culture. You're not, however, going to accelerate that kind evolution by passing sweeping gun control laws.
HTH