97 replies to this topic

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Why do stories like these where guns are used for self defense purposes never make mainstream news?









They only publicize cases where guns are used negatively.

This gives the public the misinformed idea that guns can only be used for violence or crime.

[Vanguard319]

Because they don't follow the liberal main stream media's narrative that guns are evil, and must be banned. That and it's apparently easier to blame the gun than the person who committed the crime with it,

[MarineTech]

I Zeratul I, on 01 October 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:

This gives the public the misinformed idea that guns can only be used for violence or crime.

There's your reason right there.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 02 October 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

Also dudes, the reason the media doesn't show off how a good gun owner acts is because it doesn't make for a good story. Hence why they also never show off good police officers.

A person walking into a school and shooting people makes for a good story.

But an 11 year old girl using a gun to defend herself from home invaders armed with a rifle does not?



Based on what criteria?

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 02 October 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:

Because a school shooting ends up with more dead people. And no one cares if a robber is shot. People do care when their kids are shot though dude.

Number of casualties can't be the reason. If casualties mattered the media would report gang violence casualties which have a significantly higher number of casualties than mass shootings in schools.

A thief is someone's kid. Would you agree?

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 02 October 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:

Granted those robbers also probably came by those rifles because of our system where we let anyone have a gun as long as they have a driver's license to show the to the person selling it to you.

Statistics show that overwhelmingly the number of guns used in crime/violence are obtained illegally.

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 02 October 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:

If guns were regulated and carefully watched we wouldn't have this problem. Could also shut down gun shows and make it illegal to pawn guns and sell them online as well, which would greatly reduce the problems we have, and if we did that you could still keep your guns... not that 70% of the USA even needs a gun to begin with.

That's what they said about prohibition.

What would your advice be to europeans in gun free zones who have no weapons to defend themselves from immigrants invaders? How are they supposed to protect themselves being unarmed?

[Mister Blastman]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 02 October 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

Frankly I don't see why so many Americans need all these guns. The second amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The truth is... if you're prepared for it, is that while guns are useful for protecting us versus criminals, the real purpose behind preserving our right to bear heavy arms is to protect ourselves from our own government.

[Mister Blastman]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 02 October 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

Yup and America needs to protect itself from its government... why again? Again if the federal government starts getting bad, the state governments will have their own say. Every state has its own military i.e. the National Guard, that the President can't even control.

Do you honestly think that you and the redneck hicks with their AR-15's will stand a chance against the military? Our dude's may be good hunters but they hunt stupid animals. Whereas our military is controlled by our government, and so is the FBI and CIA and they are trained to hunt people.The minute the government turns on us we have already lost. One person in our army is probably worth 10 civilian hunters.

Civilians who shoot deer, will not stand a chance against a sniper who can shoot another person at 1000 yards away.

I'd like to see what would happen if our government turned on us, just so I could see the faces of the idiots who said they could stand up against it. Because the minute an M1 Abrams shows up on the battlefield, and the airforce gets involved, I will basically just be sitting back and watching all the idiots who tried fighting them and saying "Told you so."

No point fighting a lost battle.

Well I don't think the army will immediately turn on the people. Plenty of soldiers have family and they love that family--and an order to attack civilians is in direct violation of doctrine. Their moral conscience will prevail--more often than not, and I fear we'll see our own military fighting itself. I shudder to think of what will come of this country if it ever comes to that, but those in Washington absolutely know they don't have an easy button with the armed forces.

Only a fool would fight a tank with a gun.

But when you factor in the number of weapons folks own, plus the number of servicemen that would mutiny against orders, criminals in power would be in a very dire situation. This is one reason why the plutocratic forces that currently control the media, the Federal reserve, the financial system, corporate boards and other facets of the government are trying desperately to disarm America. They know their plans can't be complete without it.

The clues are numerous if you search for them.

Frankly I'd prefer us to lay down all weapons globally and cease the killing nonsense completely, as it will destroy all of mankind in time. But we're a ways off from that...

[Davegt27]

big arguments on both sides

I spent most of my life in the military so you would have the freedoms you enjoy

please don't give up these freedoms easily

once you loose those freedoms it would be almost impossible to get them back

[Akhri Mala]

The thing about the gun laws here that stands out to me is:

Congress blocks gun deaths from being studied.

To tell if something is bad or good, you need reliable data.

Blocking study of gun deaths reeks of corruption to me.

[Mister Blastman]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 02 October 2016 - 07:31 PM, said:

And as I said before, why do we need said freedoms? Europe doesn't and it does 100 times better than us.

But they don't do better. The people are helpless in the face of terror and only a few thousand miles away Putin has reinstated the MGB (Stalin's precursor to the KGB) and outlawed free practice of religion anywhere outside of churches. A few years ago he took a European bloc country, seized it by force and claimed it for his own. What will Europe do when Putin decides one morning, "I feel like taking a stroll through Germany, then maybe Switzerland and then some dinner in Paris?"

If the people had weapons, his job would immediately be tremendously harder.

I in no way support the Iraq war and I never have, as Saddam Hussein, as evil as he was, stabilized the region through his iron grip. He held the radical factions at bay and kept them in line. However, what is the reason we have not succeeded there? Why is there not peace in the streets?

Because the people there have access to weapons. Urban warfare is a scary, nasty thing, as I'm sure some of the vets here can attest to. All those windows, rooftops, alleyways, dark of night, nooks and crannies, it is akin to one reason why Vietnam was so hard on our troops, with the network of secret tunnels that ran beneath the ground. The enemy could pop up at any time, outflanking our forces, putting them in a compromising position.

Europe looks like a better place than America, sure. But the truth is, the people there have limited freedom and in some cases are bound by the whims of their Government. Look at the European Union, for example: The heads of it are appointed and not by the people at all--three people control the major policy and decisions that everyone must abide by what they say. Three powerbrokers play the people like pawns, while their borders are being eroded by outside factions moving in and spreading like wildfire.

Europe is a very unsafe place and one of the first targets for the next Empire seeking to pillage and conquer. The biggest thing they have going for them, however, is many of the people aren't obsessed with blind lust of money and goods like Americans are. I have immense respect for that.

I'll refrain from further discussion in this thread as I don't want to cause unrest or irritation. My mind is made up. And I salute the millions of Americans who have died for our freedoms--they have long since spoken with their lives--that they wish for Americans to retain our rights and freedoms granted to us by the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. Their blood, in my eyes, speaks louder and brighter than any movement or fringe group of people. We have something special in America, let's not lose it.

[Vanguard319]

Yeah Europe is really safe, maybe if you live in Switzerland, (where every adult is armed as required by their laws.) the rest of the country though, well, let's just say that there are quite a few French people over the last two years who would call Marack a naïve fool, if they weren't killed by supporters of Islamic State. The EU's response to such attacks? Try and dismiss it as the work of a disgruntled lone wolf, or pretend it wasn't an act of terrorism.

[Domoneky]

[Mister Blastman]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 03 October 2016 - 01:56 PM, said:

Give me one single reason to think this government is trying to do anything wrong? One single reason, that can't be explained any other way at all, other than the government trying to take us over. Unfortunately there are none because all arguments saying the government is trying to, are just formed from picking and choosing little snippets of facts.

Wealth disparity is the biggest cause of crime, violence and suffering in America. And it is fueled by the elite. Intimately understanding economics is part of my day job, btw.




How do we solve the problem? Two steps:

1. Force another great depression by shutting down the Fed, wiping out the majority of wealth.
2. Institute exceptionally high taxes for the highest earners.

My only worry is what happens to authors and other artists who get a rare big check? That doesn't happen often so an adjustment to the tax code would be in order.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 04 October 2016 - 06:44 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

I'm quite familiar with all the underlying factors, but to delve into them would require more than a forum. My understanding of these economic factors is directly tied with my ability to do my job and make money for my clients. My career depends on my ability to interpret data and make decisions on it, probability, statistics and chance, so I can assure you that I'm not pulling this out of my backside.

If there was no wealth disparity, would you not agree that this world would be a better place? And the number one way to do this is to eliminate currency and power. If both are eliminated, what is there left to fight for? Our genetic predisposition to kill and hoard is eradicated at that juncture. It ceases to serve a purpose in a society where everything anyone needs is provided for them.

People don't need mansions, nor do they need fancy cars, elegant jewelry, twenty servants, five vacation homes, a castle and a private jet. What they need is peace among their neighbors, love for one another and a philosophical intervention so they can see the value in utilizing their personal gifts or skills (some people are smart, others are strong, some can focus on repetitive tasks, etc.) to craft a better society. Goods will be produced to last, drugs will be manufactured to cure, not just sustain, services will be created to fuel further knowledge transfer so problems and obstacles can be solved that stand in the way of our long-term survival as a species.

The only reason money exists in its current form is because we, the common folk, clutch to it like a crutch while those with immense amounts of it use it as a tool to control their power over us. And when wealth gaps prevail, so does hatred and by proxy, our genetic urges to hurt, maim and destroy to reclaim that power our hearts secretly desire.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 04 October 2016 - 07:23 AM.

[Heffay]

Guns should remain legal because they are cool and fun.

Prohibition is a horrible strategy to try to deal with issues. Deal with the root causes, not the symptoms.

If something can be used responsibly, then there is no reason to ban them. This applies to everything: guns, drugs, alcohol, writing, and... everything.

[Heffay]

Then be consistent, and ask for banning anything that when used irresponsibly ends up killing people.

Guns
Knives
Swimming Pools
Alcohol
Prescription drugs
OTC drugs
Cars
Bikes
Sex
French fries
Mayonnaise
The French
Internet forums

The world is a dangerous place. Let's ban everything.

[Heffay]

We also apparently need to ban Nicolas Cage movies:

[Gen82]

Look outside your little bubble of freedom every once in a while, my 'Murican friends.

[Rogue Jedi]

The Brittish government has made it rather difficult for people to legally obtain a firearm, it is illegal to carry one, or even most knives and in the UK a murder is national news.

in the US gun ownership is relatively common, murder is relatively common in the cities and there is (as far as I am aware) no law against carrying knives

there are nations where a (relatively) high percentage of the population own guns but crime involving them is rare so there is no clear link between gun ownership and gun related crimes.

as I understand it the vast majority of gun crime in the US is in urban areas so to rectify this as far as I can see the US needs ether a major crackdown on weaponry like the UK has done or some how educating people not to use guns for criminal purposes.

based on what I have read if all guns were in the hands of people living in the countryside there would be far fewer incidents of gun misuse, so the solution seems simple, if you want to own a gun you cannot live close to a large town or city, that should solve the problem, I know that would not work but based on my (admittedly incomplete) knowledge of the subject that seems like the best solution.

Tthis is an English man speaking about an issue in the United States of America, I intend no offence and am just offering an outsiders perspective.

[Rogue Jedi]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 04 October 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:

By that same standard we also need more pirates in the world:

piracy (as in stealing ships and/or their cargo) is actually still pretty common today, with hundreds of incidents each year, and an estimated annual cost in the billions of dollars, if that is all done by 17 pirates then that looks like an extremely lucrative career. although I suspect you are missing a few 0s from the current number.

I understand you are just trying to prove a point but please do a bit of research before posting something with such massively inaccurate figures