Originally posted by Shutout@Jun 15 2016, 10:20 PM


How often is a fucking plane hijacked and crashed? Are you serious? Comparing that to gun violence? Get a fucking grip, man...

It's a reasonable comparison, 9/11 terrorists could have go in with guns, they could have bombed the place, but they decided highjacking a plane and crashing into the building itself would be the most efficient way.

His point, easy enough to see, is if someone wants to kill someone or a lot of someones, gun or not, they will find a way to give it a try.

Originally posted by Shutout@Jun 15 2016, 07:28 PM


Why would I risk trying (and most likely failing) to hijack a plane, when I can just walk down the street and buy a gun and then do it. You can't compare the two.

I think you're getting hung up on details here. I merely used hijacking a public vehicle as an alternate example of ways a person could inflict mortal danger onto other people. A person who is determined to find trouble will undoubtedly find it.

Originally posted by Shutout@Jun 15 2016, 10:28 PM


Why would I risk trying (and most likely failing) to hijack a plane, when I can just walk down the street and buy a gun and then do it. You can't compare the two.

Honestly you would have an easier time with the plane, there is paperwork impeding you from the gun, there is only TSA agents keeping you off the plane and unless you got water and a set of nail clippers, success is near guaranteed.

Originally posted by Private Snowball@Jun 15 2016, 09:34 PM


Honestly you would have an easier time with the plane, there is paperwork impeding you from the gun, there is  only TSA agents keeping you off the plane and unless you got water and a set of nail clippers, success is near guaranteed.

There's more to hijacking a plane than just getting on a plane though...

GUNS N NUKES 4 EVERYONE.



MAD IS THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT EVERYONE

Originally posted by Private Snowball@Jun 15 2016, 07:34 PM


Honestly you would have an easier time with the plane, there is paperwork impeding you from the gun, there is  only TSA agents keeping you off the plane and unless you got water and a set of nail clippers, success is near guaranteed.

Details again. Nobody cares about your hare brained airplane plans for hijacking planes Mac.

Originally posted by Shutout@Jun 15 2016, 10:37 PM


There's more to hijacking a plane than just getting on a plane though...

Just as there is more to the gun problem than availability.

Originally posted by Private Snowball@Jun 15 2016, 09:40 PM


Just as there is more to the gun problem than availability.

If I want to kill a few people, it is FAR easier to go buy a gun and do it than it is to hijack a plan.

Perhaps my mind is blocking out all these mass airplane murders. Or maybe I'm crazy, I don't know.

Originally posted by Private Snowball@Jun 15 2016, 09:32 PM



His point, easy enough to see, is if someone wants to kill someone or a lot of someones, gun or not, they will find a way to give it a try.

A solution is not "oh they're gonna do it anyways, who cares, we're fine".

Originally posted by Shutout@Jun 15 2016, 07:47 PM


A solution is not "oh they're gonna do it anyways, who cares, we're fine".

I never proposed a solution, I merely asked how we could go about stopping violence.

What Dangles said

Originally posted by Shutout@Jun 15 2016, 08:18 PM


And how often do bombings happen here in America? How often are random, innocent people targeted by a crazy guy (always a guy) with a gun?

Three people who died in the bombing and hundreds were injured... but how often do bombings happen? They are rare because someone intent on killing a bunch of people can literally just go out and buy some guns and that is much easier than figuring out how to build bombs and then hope they go off as intended.

Domestic bombings are attempted on average semi-annually...and in some eras far more frequently. Success rate of bombings is different, but the point still stands.

I'd say the frequency of mass shootings is larger, but the disparity is probably much smaller than we'd like to think. Radicals will find ways to commit mass murder or injury with or without guns.

I'm very far to the right. I think the problem with these arguments is that it always devolves into "you think we want no guns, that's not what we are saying" or "if everyone had guns these things wouldn't happen" strawman arguments from both sides.

What everyone needs to realize is that the correct answer is somewhere in the middle. We have some process to make sure that the radicalists with the greatest likelihood of doing something terrible don't have the means to do so, but also respecting the rights of those who use firearms in all lawful and legal capacities.

I don't think our problem in the US is guns. I think our problem is the inability to identify those individuals who will commit such acts and keep them from doing so. Which quite frankly, is an impossible task.

Anyways, this topic should die.

Thanks Jove for my sig

Originally posted by Merica@Jun 15 2016, 01:10 PM


Sandy Hook: Gun free school zone
Virginia Tech: Gun free school zone
San Bernandino: Gun free
Orlando: Gun free club (you cant carry weapons intoxicated or at a bar period unless it specifically states you can, which is very rare.)

Now I am NOT  advocating right now that we allow teachers or college, I am simply pointing that the places the most recent mass shootings have occurred are places that concealed gun carriers are NOT ALLOWED to carry.  SO FUCKING SHIT THEY DIDNT STOP THEM.

Concealed carry permit holders have stopped numerous shootings and saved numerous lives.  However you never hear about it because its kept off the mainstream media, because God FORBID they actually report positive news involving guns.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/12/four-conc...-the-last-week/
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/04/uber-driv...ublic-shooting/
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/const...guys-with-guns/
http://kfor.com/2016/01/26/graphic-conceal...of-barber-shop/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/20...-house-robbery/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk994YRlkXQ

I pulled those examples in two minutes. There are tons more. Do a little more research next time and stop listening to all the fucking bullshit lies you are fed.

Yes, so it does happen, but considering the amount of gun crime it is a very low percentage of times it does happen. Yes, there are a lot of considerations for gun-free zones. But you also have to look at other statistics besides just that in a few, and I stress few when compared to the grand scheme, someone did step up.And I did look it up! In almost all of the ones I found, it was a person with handgun or something being stopped. Which is at least better odds than someone armed with an AR-15 and the like. Add to that what you find when looking up good Samaritans that accidentally kill innocents while trying to help, and it's even less helpful to use that as a declaration for needing so many guns.

Maybe if we had less gun-free zones we would see a spike, I'll give you that. I still doubt it puts much of a dent in the statistics like many imagine it would.

You could also be less of a total butthole about assuming I didn't look anything up. And yeah, I called you a butthole.

EDIT: I should also say I'm not against legal guns, just think we don't need so damn many, think that we need to shore up how we go about restricting legal gun availability to those who are at higher risk of using them for ill, and don't believe in taking guns away, even AR-15s, from legal gun owners who already have them. I would be in favor of grandfathering most of that shit in.

Originally posted by Nike@Jun 15 2016, 11:30 PM


What everyone needs to realize is that the correct answer is somewhere in the middle. We have some process to make sure that the radicalists with the greatest likelihood of doing something terrible don't have the means to do so, but also respecting the rights of those who use firearms in all lawful and legal capacities.

Hear, hear.

Originally posted by 701 aka YUNG GUAP GOD@Jun 16 2016, 12:41 AM

So, uh, the history EVERYONE was taught, is wrong?

Go ahead, tell me, since you were there! Oh wait, you weren't, you just live in Germany now.

You retarded twat.

That's not the point.

You wrote that you need your guns because the government might get oppressive like Hitler.

That's why I have to ask for a second time: are you fucking retarded?
Do you really think the situation is comparable? Is there a civilian "military arm" for the Democratic or Republican party? Are civil rights stripped? Are human rights revoked? Do social minorities get severely persecuted? I could go on and on with this list, but I hope you know where I'm getting at - I don't see that happening in the near future for y'all neither with Dems nor with Reps. Still, that Hitler comparison was just stupid and badly chosen. I might not have been there personally, but there are plenty of elder people in my family and surroundings that had to live their childhood and youth in these days.

History that you admitted was taught to EVERYONE should also enable EVERYONE to put it into a context.