Page 149 of 212 FirstFirst ... 139149159 ... LastLast
Results 3,701 to 3,725 of 5283
  1. #3701
    Supreme Veteran
    Ixion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New York
    PSN ID
    MagicManGSC
    Age
    24
    Posts
    19,903
    Rep Power
    159
    Points
    69,058 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    It's not about making the public safer. It's about the pursuit of an unstated agenda.

    Taken from another forum:
    Hence why many believe the government is trying to disarm the public in preparation of more control.

    I really can't think of any other reason, unless our politicians have their hearts in the right place, but are making knee-jerk reactions. And I doubt that.

    I'm not saying these mass shootings with assault weapons aren't terrible, but according to the statistics, they're extremely rare.
    Last edited by Ixion; 01-15-2013 at 03:09.

  2. #3702
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,981
    Rep Power
    112
    Points
    42,781 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ixion View Post
    Hence why many believe the government is trying to disarm the public in preparation of for more control.

    I really can't think of any other reason, unless our politicians have their hearts in the right place, but are making knee-jerk reactions. And I doubt that.

    I'm not saying these mass shootings with assault weapons aren't terrible, but according to the statistics, they're extremely rare.
    The funny thing is the people for more gun control don't even realize this. Which is why I suppose they have trouble understanding why pro 2nd amendment people belittle them.

    #1: talking about matters they are not informed about.

    #2: supporting bs gun control measures that won't do a damn thing to make people safer (it will likely do the opposite) at the expense of peoples rights/the constitution.

    #3 Calling people that disagree with them (who do know what they are talking about) crazy or extremists (and some are advocating for bad things to be done to these people)

    Three strikes and they are out.

  3. Likes Ixion likes this post
  4. #3703
    Supreme Veteran
    Ixion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New York
    PSN ID
    MagicManGSC
    Age
    24
    Posts
    19,903
    Rep Power
    159
    Points
    69,058 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Rep. Stockman threatens Obama impeachment over guns

    Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) is threatening to file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he moves to change gun regulations through executive order.

    “I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said.

    In a statement, Stockman didn’t hold back, saying Obama is launching an “attack on the very founding principles of this republic.”

    “The President’s actions are an existential threat to this nation,” Stockman said in a statement. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible.”

    Obama said in a Monday morning press conference that he will make public recommendations from a task force run by Vice President Joe Biden to curb gun violence in the wake of shootings in Newtown, Conn. Last week, Biden said some of those restrictions may be achieved through executive order instead of the legislative process.

    Stockman - a former House member who returned to Washington after 15 years this January to oppose John Boehner as speaker - said taking away guns requires due process and the consent of Congress.

    “The President’s actions are not just an attack on the Constitution and a violation of his sworn oath of office – they are a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger,” he said. “If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.”

  5. Likes Kwes likes this post
  6. #3704
    Unbound Mercenary
    Kwes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    16,249
    Rep Power
    143
    Points
    475,593 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Good to see that they are standing up to Obama.
    Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.




  7. #3705
    Apprentice
    Hayzoo5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    217
    Rep Power
    16
    Points
    2,434 (0 Banked)
    Hey if anybody wants to transcend slacktivism and clicktivism, if you can get out to DC for this

    http://act.350.org/signup/presidentsday

    To make Obama actually do something about climate change, block the KXL pipeline, and protect our water, air, soil, etc, then let's go!

  8. #3706
    El Presidente
    podsaurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    in a box
    Age
    23
    Posts
    3,974
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    25,148 (0 Banked)
    I firmly believe this country needs better backround checks and psych evaluations for people buying guns not banning weapons. Focus on who is getting the gun not what kind they get. Letting someone who is mentally unstable handle a gun will turn sour quickly. So I do not support tighter guns laws. I do support more research and further development of medicine and psych tests to help this mentally unstable people and lessen these incidents. Besides, if someone wants a gun they are going to get it by legal or most likely illegal means.

  9. #3707
    PSU Technical Advisor
    Vulgotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    23
    Posts
    15,953
    Rep Power
    143
    Points
    106,591 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I'm pissed. I'm starting to really get into firearms and I'm glad that I've been able to acquire a few good guns... But basically hear that the good times are about to end thanks to Obama and Feinstein.. Ugh.

    There's no rational argument to be had from these people. It's just knee jerk sensationalist nonsense. As Matrix said, there is probably another agenda at play even if it is perhaps merely minor. Disarming a population does nothing, demonstrably, to reduce net violence in a nation. It does, however, have the effect of making a populace more compliant and vulnerable to government control.


  10. Likes Ixion likes this post
  11. #3708
    Elite Member
    reasonable_doubt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,745
    Rep Power
    67
    Points
    7,902 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulgotha View Post
    I'm pissed. I'm starting to really get into firearms and I'm glad that I've been able to acquire a few good guns... But basically hear that the good times are about to end thanks to Obama and Feinstein.. Ugh.

    There's no rational argument to be had from these people. It's just knee jerk sensationalist nonsense. As Matrix said, there is probably another agenda at play even if it is perhaps merely minor. Disarming a population does nothing, demonstrably, to reduce net violence in a nation. It does, however, have the effect of making a populace more compliant and vulnerable to government control.
    That's only if ur going along with it. I'm not giving up $#@! or registering anything.

  12. #3709
    Supreme Veteran
    Ixion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New York
    PSN ID
    MagicManGSC
    Age
    24
    Posts
    19,903
    Rep Power
    159
    Points
    69,058 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    It's time to start a well-regulated PSU militia!

  13. #3710
    Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    PSN ID
    Chickenooble
    Posts
    132
    Rep Power
    13
    Points
    1,785 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by podsaurus View Post
    I do not support tighter guns laws.

    I firmly believe this country needs better backround checks and psych evaluations for people buying guns not banning weapons. Focus on who is getting the gun not what kind they get.
    Dumb post.

    You're trying to sell yourself as a proponent for gun ownership by saying, "I'm not supporting tighter gun laws", but then you contradict yourself by advocating that the government develop, implement and execute a plan which limits individuals buying weapons by some arbitrary metric derived from a mental health evaluation. To have mental health evaluations would require legislation, and legislation like that would only be used to limit access to certain individuals. Granted, you're not saying, "All assault weapons are banned", but you're saying, "Certain people can't use (own and buy, perhaps) firearms if they don't pass this test." Unfortunately, you're going to relegate the scale of the test to whichever parties have an agenda. If this administration wanted to, by your suggestion, they could simply change the 'passing threshold' for your mental evaluation and restrict most, if not all, people's access and/or usage.

    Do you really want to give the government that control? Are you really willing to take away a persons right to defend themselves because they're not as 'sane' as the next guy?

    Quote Originally Posted by podsaurus View Post
    I do support... psych tests to help this mentally unstable people and lessen these incidents. Besides, if someone wants a gun they are going to get it by legal or most likely illegal means.
    You say that some mental health evaluations will somehow lessen these incidents, but immediately after, say that if someone wants a firearm, they'll get it through whatever legal or illegal means. Are you suggesting that people incapable of passing a mental health evaluation are incapable of acquiring a firearm illegally?

    Quote Originally Posted by podsaurus View Post
    Letting someone who is mentally unstable handle a gun will turn sour quickly.
    I doubt there's substantial evidence to support this claim.

    Here are my issues with your proposal:
    * Any 'mentally unstable' person can live thier life with access to a firearm and not use it in the commission of a crime.
    * Any 'mentally stable' person can live their life with access to a firearm and use it in the commission of a crime.

    Your proposal is a waste of time and resources, I think.
    Last edited by Chickenooble; 01-16-2013 at 15:59.

  14. #3711
    The Heisman
    DayWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    13,134
    Rep Power
    101
    Points
    1,035 (9,287 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Nicely done POTUS

    By Theft
    I am stunned that some people appear to love their Playstation(1,2,3) or Xbox(360) more than I love the Denver Broncos.
    Trust me, it's sad

  15. #3712
    PSU Technical Advisor
    Vulgotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    23
    Posts
    15,953
    Rep Power
    143
    Points
    106,591 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    His legislation will, thankfully, fail and his EO's won't do anything overly damaging to my rights. So I'm kind of relieved.


  16. #3713
    El Presidente
    podsaurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    in a box
    Age
    23
    Posts
    3,974
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    25,148 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chickenooble View Post
    Dumb post.

    You're trying to sell yourself as a proponent for gun ownership by saying, "I'm not supporting tighter gun laws", but then you contradict yourself by advocating that the government develop, implement and execute a plan which limits individuals buying weapons by some arbitrary metric derived from a mental health evaluation.
    That was completely my fault. I didn't state correctly what I meant and I'm sorry about that. What I meant and should have said is that I don't support restricting gun sales by banning the sale of certain types of weapons. People can buy whatever guns they want to. Apart from obviously RPG's or things like that that are completely unnecessary for an individual to own. I want mental evaluations, thorough backround checks, and people to take a gun safety class, if the backround checks and safety classes aren't standard at gun shops already. I've never bought a gun so I don't know the procedure.

    You're trying to sell yourself as a proponent for gun ownership
    I'm not trying to sell myself as anything, I'm stating my opinion.


    To have mental health evaluations would require legislation, and legislation like that would only be used to limit access to certain individuals. Granted, you're not saying, "All assault weapons are banned", but you're saying, "Certain people can't use (own and buy, perhaps) firearms if they don't pass this test." Unfortunately, you're going to relegate the scale of the test to whichever parties have an agenda. If this administration wanted to, by your suggestion, they could simply change the 'passing threshold' for your mental evaluation and restrict most, if not all, people's access and/or usage.
    They have to know the difference between right an wrong. I'm not asking people to take an IQ test and get a perfect score.

    I don't want someone in there 30's but has the mental capacity of a 5 year old to own a gun. They aren't mature enough for me the feel comfortable about them using a gun. I don't want someone who has paranoid schizophrenia carrying a gun. They may not take any medication they're given, have one of there 'episodes', freak out, grab their gun, because it's the only thing they feel can protect them, and who knows what they might do. Someone could get hurt. People like that I feel bad for but they can't fully handle the world around them so I don't want them with a gun around, that's scary.

    To your point about different administrations changing the threshold, implement a counter so that if a handful of people want it changed it won't work there needs to be a majority. Make if difficult to change so people can't turn things around constantly.

    by your suggestion, they could simply change the 'passing threshold' for your mental evaluation and restrict most, if not all, people's access and/or usage.
    I highly doubt the threshold could be raised high enough for no one to pass. This isn't an IQ test.

    Do you really want to give the government that control? Are you really willing to take away a persons right to defend themselves because they're not as 'sane' as the next guy?
    No I don't really want to give the government too much control. But yes I am willing to restrict someone from owning a gun if they have no concept of right and wrong. If they were to shoot an innocent bystander and are mentally unable to understand what they did was wrong I don't want a gun in there hands. Period.

    You say that some mental health evaluations will somehow lessen these incidents, but immediately after, say that if someone wants a firearm, they'll get it through whatever legal or illegal means.
    I would like to hope these incidents would lessen yes. Do I think if something like this were to pass legislation that gun violence would suddenly drop off? No. It's my opinion and a suggestion, not an end all solution.

    Are you suggesting that people incapable of passing a mental health evaluation are incapable of acquiring a firearm illegally?
    I don't think that at all. But I don't think that everybody knows where and how to get a gun illegally, I sure don't. I wouldn't even know where to start.

    Here are my issues with your proposal:
    * Any 'mentally unstable' person can live thier life with access to a firearm and not use it in the commission of a crime.
    * Any 'mentally stable' person can live their life with access to a firearm and use it in the commission of a crime.

    Your proposal is a waste of time and resources, I think.
    That's true. There are people who have no mental disease but just snap and commit a crime and there are mentally diseased people who would be perfectly fine. As I said, these are all my opinions and my suggestions.

    I'd like to hear your suggestions for what to do about all this.

  17. #3714
    Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    PSN ID
    Chickenooble
    Posts
    132
    Rep Power
    13
    Points
    1,785 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by podsaurus View Post
    I'd like to hear your suggestions for what to do about all this.
    Fair enough. My answer is simply, "Allow more people to carry firearms."

    1) I would encourage more people to carry firearms. Open carry, conceal carry... I don't care, as long as the holder is lawful and responsible. I think a greater presence of firearms in the public would do more for crime than disarming the public. I truly believe that banning any object or substance is a futile effort. It didn't work during prohibition. It hasn't worked with the 'war on drugs'. It simply won't work with firearms.

    If we restrict responsible and law-abiding citizens to carry and protect themselves, then the only people who will have firearms will be criminals. I have a right to protect myself and my family, so restricting my right to that protection is wrong. Criminals, last I checked, aren't concerned about following the law or my safety... especially during the commission of a crime.

    2) I would permit teachers and faculty to conceal-carry their firearms on school premises under the following conditions: a) Their firearm is registered with the state in which they teach, b) The teacher/faculty takes an annual safety course, c) The teacher/faculty completes basic SRO training. I would have felonious penalties for teachers/faculty that misuse this privilege, including prison sentences.

    School Resource Officers and Armed Police Officers in our school is a good idea, however, it's costly. For a school year, you would need to employ, at least, an individual specifically assigned to that school, for the duration of the day. In my county we have 30 schools. Assign a full-time officer to each location as a 'show of force', while paying them a salary, and you'll see the costs grow. This is something that many places can't afford during low economic times... and moreso if the school is in a poor socio-economic area.

    If we allow teachers and faculty to arm themselves then we're providing more protection for the students at almost no cost. A single teacher carrying a firearm would be the equivalent of a paid School Resource Officer or a Police Officer. If three teachers carried, then you have a greater force to stop a gunman. Consider the scenario where shots are fired across a school building, opposite the location of a school resource officer. Children are likely to die, and even more likely if there is no one capable of stopping them nearby. If we gave teachers the opportunity to protect themselves and their students, then perhaps gunmen wouldn't be as successful as they have been. A lone school resource officer isn't always adequate, as we've seen in Columbine.

    3) I would remove the 'Gun Free School Zone' label from college campuses. I would urge campuses to allow students to carry their firearm if they, a) Register it with the school security office, b) takes an annual safety course. Furthermore, I would extend the same privilege to professors and faculty as I do to grade-school teachers, and under the same conditions and penalties.

    4) I would make it unlawful for a felon to own or use a firearm.

    5) I would make it unlawful for minors to buy a firearm.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Did you know there are roughly 266,000,000 firearms in the United States? Did you know that, in 2011, there were about 8,600 murders by a firearm? That's 0.0002% of the US population killed by a firearm. Worth mentioning that the rate of gun-related murders over the last decade has dropped by almost 20%, while the population and overall gun ownership has increased.

    Another interesting tid-bit relating to those statistics... Of the roughly 8,600 murders, since the 'Assault Weapon Ban' ended in 2004, there have been 385 murders by 'assault weapons' (like the AR15), and that amounts to .6% of the firearm murders each year since 2004. Although I hate saying it's 'insignificant', but statistically, when 0.0002% of a population is murdered annually by a firearm, and when 0.6% of the 0.0002% is murdered by 'assault weapons,' I don't see how anyone can justify banning something like that.
    Last edited by Chickenooble; 01-17-2013 at 02:43.

  18. #3715
    Elite Member
    reasonable_doubt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,745
    Rep Power
    67
    Points
    7,902 (0 Banked)

  19. #3716
    El Presidente
    podsaurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    in a box
    Age
    23
    Posts
    3,974
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    25,148 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chickenooble View Post
    Fair enough. My answer is simply, "Allow more people to carry firearms."

    1) I would encourage more people to carry firearms. Open carry, conceal carry... I don't care, as long as the holder is lawful and responsible. I think a greater presence of firearms in the public would do more for crime than disarming the public. I truly believe that banning any object or substance is a futile effort. It didn't work during prohibition. It hasn't worked with the 'war on drugs'. It simply won't work with firearms.
    Not saying it wouldn't work but that worries me. The person could very well be responsible but it concerns me that if something happens(an argument in a store, restaurant or where ever) and they fly off the handle, because open/conceal carry is allowed as you suggest, pull out their gun and do who knows what. You said it yourself:

    * Any 'mentally stable' person can live their life with access to a firearm and use it in the commission of a crime.
    Even people who aren't mentally diseased per se that are currently going through, lets say anger management issues I don't want carrying a gun in public. Same with people who have autism and exhibit signs of anger issues and self injury, which are relatively common but not everyone with autism has those issues. They may not be minors or have ever committed a crime but there are underlying issues that make me skeptical of putting a gun in their hand. Do you want to allow people having problems like that to carry a gun around in public?

    If we restrict responsible and law-abiding citizens to carry and protect themselves, then the only people who will have firearms will be criminals. I have a right to protect myself and my family, so restricting my right to that protection is wrong. Criminals, last I checked, aren't concerned about following the law or my safety... especially during the commission of a crime.
    I of course don't want to infringe on people's right to protect themselves but as I stated above and in my last post, handing a gun over to people who are having mental issues or may not be 'all there' mentally I have a problem with that.

    2) I would permit teachers and faculty to conceal-carry their firearms on school premises under the following conditions: a) Their firearm is registered with the state in which they teach, b) The teacher/faculty takes an annual safety course, c) The teacher/faculty completes basic SRO training. I would have felonious penalties for teachers/faculty that misuse this privilege, including prison sentences.

    School Resource Officers and Armed Police Officers in our school is a good idea, however, it's costly. For a school year, you would need to employ, at least, an individual specifically assigned to that school, for the duration of the day. In my county we have 30 schools. Assign a full-time officer to each location as a 'show of force', while paying them a salary, and you'll see the costs grow. This is something that many places can't afford during low economic times... and moreso if the school is in a poor socio-economic area.
    I think many schools around here could not afford to keep an officer in the school. That would be too costly, I agree with you here.

    If we allow teachers and faculty to arm themselves then we're providing more protection for the students at almost no cost. A single teacher carrying a firearm would be the equivalent of a paid School Resource Officer or a Police Officer. If three teachers carried, then you have a greater force to stop a gunman. Consider the scenario where shots are fired across a school building, opposite the location of a school resource officer. Children are likely to die, and even more likely if there is no one capable of stopping them nearby. If we gave teachers the opportunity to protect themselves and their students, then perhaps gunmen wouldn't be as successful as they have been. A lone school resource officer isn't always adequate, as we've seen in Columbine.

    3) I would remove the 'Gun Free School Zone' label from college campuses. I would urge campuses to allow students to carry their firearm if they, a) Register it with the school security office, b) takes an annual safety course. Furthermore, I would extend the same privilege to professors and faculty as I do to grade-school teachers, and under the same conditions and penalties.

    4) I would make it unlawful for a felon to own or use a firearm.

    5) I would make it unlawful for minors to buy a firearm.

    Did you know there are roughly 266,000,000 firearms in the United States? Did you know that, in 2011, there were about 8,600 murders by a firearm? That's 0.0002% of the US population killed by a firearm. Worth mentioning that the rate of gun-related murders over the last decade has dropped by almost 20%, while the population and overall gun ownership has increased.

    Another interesting tid-bit relating to those statistics... Of the roughly 8,600 murders, since the 'Assault Weapon Ban' ended in 2004, there have been 385 murders by 'assault weapons' (like the AR15), and that amounts to .6% of the firearm murders each year since 2004. Although I hate saying it's 'insignificant', but statistically, when 0.0002% of a population is murdered annually by a firearm, and when 0.6% of the 0.0002% is murdered by 'assault weapons,' I don't see how anyone can justify banning something like that.
    I agree here I wouldn't want to keep people from buying certain types of guns i.e. assault weapons. You can have any gun you would like but I'm worried about who gets a gun.

    Granted if there were ever a problem and someone pulled out a gun in public there would be others who also have guns and could hopefully stop the aggressor. But if people feel like they have to buy a gun and carry it around everywhere they go then there is a bigger issue here. If what you suggest were to happen I feel I would have to buy and carry a gun with me because I'm worried about, not only criminals but other people with their guns and what they might do should problems arise.

    I don't even want to think about that. I don't want to have to buy a gun and there is a bigger issue with this society if I feel that unsafe without one.

    The problem I have with this is it just puts a gun in a holster for everyone and allows criminals to show up and be dealt with anyway. What I feel should be done is better education. Educating kids coming from rough neighborhoods, deterring them from going down the path of a criminal in the first place. Why not confront the root of the problem early on, instead of waiting for people to become criminals and be a threat in the first place?

  20. #3717
    Elite Member
    reasonable_doubt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,745
    Rep Power
    67
    Points
    7,902 (0 Banked)
    Gotta love the irony on this one, everybody love gun free zone even the anti-gun ppl.


  21. Likes Yuuichi likes this post
  22. #3718
    Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    PSN ID
    Chickenooble
    Posts
    132
    Rep Power
    13
    Points
    1,785 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by podsaurus View Post
    Not saying it wouldn't work but that worries me. The person could very well be responsible but it concerns me that if something happens(an argument in a store, restaurant or where ever) and they fly off the handle, because open/conceal carry is allowed as you suggest, pull out their gun and do who knows what.
    I live in Virginia. In this state you can open carry, conceal carry, and even sling an AR-15 if you want. The only places you can't carry are schools, banks, government buildings and bars. Most, if not all, legal and responsible gun owners know that you don't brandish your weapon during an argument. The only time you should draw your firearm is if you feel your life, or the life of another, is in life-threatening danger.

    If someone draws at dinner because they have a disagreement then that person is unlawfully brandishing their weapon. They're breaking the law and the penalty will range from a misdemeanor to a class 6 felony... and if the firearm is discharged, then the punishment is more severe.

    Do you want to allow people having problems like that to carry a gun around in public?

    I of course don't want to infringe on people's right to protect themselves but as I stated above and in my last post, handing a gun over to people who are having mental issues or may not be 'all there' mentally I have a problem with that.
    I'm not sure if I want some paranoid schizophrenic to carry a firearm in public. I guess if they're lawfully carrying then what do I have to worry about? If they're acting unlawfully then that would be a different, but anyone is capable of that, regardless of their mental state. If they decide to do harm, I want to empower more people to be able to stop them.

    I have a hard time taking the rights away from people, in this case, the mentally ill, if they haven't done any harm. Just because someone was born with a mental condition, or if they have a degenerative illness, doesn't mean they're less deserving of the same rights as everyone else.

    Granted if there were ever a problem and someone pulled out a gun in public there would be others who also have guns and could hopefully stop the aggressor. But if people feel like they have to buy a gun and carry it around everywhere they go then there is a bigger issue here. If what you suggest were to happen I feel I would have to buy and carry a gun with me because I'm worried about, not only criminals but other people with their guns and what they might do should problems arise.

    I don't even want to think about that. I don't want to have to buy a gun and there is a bigger issue with this society if I feel that unsafe without one.
    I was just speaking specifically to gun laws... but, as you said, there are other factors as to why there is a need to carry firearms. You say education, and that's a fair point, to some degree. I would argue that socio-economic disparity, our entitlement society and lowering our moral and ethical standards... those are, I believe, the greatest contributors to crime and gun violence.

  23. #3719
    Miqo'te Bard
    Yuuichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,985
    Rep Power
    75
    Points
    14,718 (0 Banked)
    Items New User TitleProtect yourselfFull Metal AlchemistFangDark Souls CoverDemons Souls CoverBattlefield 3Title StyleUser name style
    Quote Originally Posted by reasonable_doubt View Post
    Gotta love the irony on this one, everybody love gun free zone even the anti-gun ppl.


    lol such hypocrisy love it.
    I have twitter to https://twitter.com/GamerYuichi , Also started youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMu7yRGCz8QrTyxaNVR3Tqw I don't always twitch, but when I can you can find my noobness http://www.twitch.tv/yuichimccry,




  24. #3720
    Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    PSN ID
    Chickenooble
    Posts
    132
    Rep Power
    13
    Points
    1,785 (0 Banked)
    Mr. President, Chicago's Gun Victims Need You Now
    Mr. President, please come to Chicago.

    In Washington on Wednesday, as you rolled out a slate of gun control measures quickly cobbled together in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, you said, “If there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try.”

    If you believe those words, Mr. President, here is a heartfelt suggestion: Come back to your adopted hometown and personally host a summit that grapples seriously with the causes of -- and crafts meaningful solutions to -- gang violence in America’s big cities.

    It’s really not much of an exaggeration to say that parts of Chicago resemble a war zone. The numbers are grim. Unofficially, there were 513 homicides in Chicago in 2012, nearly 100 more than New York City, which recorded 414 killings but which has a population three times larger. Chicago’s body count is 200 more than the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan last year. The carnage has continued unabated into the New Year.

    It’s gone on too long, sir.

    The sad reality is that while terrible mass shootings like the ones at Aurora and Newtown shock the nation’s conscience, pull at the public’s heartstrings, and garner wall-to-wall media coverage, they represent a tiny fraction of the number of gun homicides in the country every year.

    Consider this, Mr. President: During the first 16 days of January, 26 people have been killed by guns in Chicago -- the exact same number as at Sandy Hook Elementary School. By the time this year is out, the south and west sides of the city we both call home will have endured, in terms of sheer numbers of people killed, the equivalent of 20 Sandy Hook massacres. That’s on top of the equivalent of the 19 Sandy Hooks the city experienced in 2012.

    Yet there has been little outcry by the national media, and not much public attention paid to Chicago’s crucible by either national political party. Just the sterile news stories in the local papers every morning recounting the details of yet another young person’s life cut short and another family ripped apart thanks to senseless violence.

    The other sad reality, Mr. President, is that almost nothing proposed this week in Washington, D.C., by your administration will do anything to stem the tide of gun violence in our inner cities. Most of these crimes were not committed with semi-automatic assault weapons, they weren’t committed by the mentally ill, and they won’t be stopped by universal background checks.

    If you are serious about doing everything in your power to curb gun violence and save lives, then you must harness your immense popularity in Chicago -- and in other big cities -- to address the elephant in the room: the failures of a society grown coarsened, desensitized to violence, and too tolerant of such carnage.

    This is true of American culture broadly: Hollywood has become too blithe in its glorification of murder, and makers of ultra-violent video games share some of the blame too. But it’s particularly true within the African-American community, where too many fatherless young men have given up hope for a better future and embraced a nihilistic gang culture that not only accepts brutal violence on a daily basis but encourages it.

    During your presidency you’ve been asked a number of times about issues of concern to the black community, such as the high rate of African-American unemployment. You tend to respond, gracefully, and rightly, I believe, that you are president of all Americans, and not just one particular group or another.

    This issue is different. Because of your heritage and your stature as the first African-American president, you may be the only person in this country who has the influence and moral standing to speak much needed truths to address this longstanding scourge in the black community.

    As you said, “If there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try.”

    There is one thing you can do, Mr. President. Come home to Chicago. Talk to the kids. If they’ll listen to anybody, they’ll listen to you.
    source

    Yea, Mr. President... What now, playa?

  25. #3721
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Oklahoma
    PSN ID
    Key2001
    Posts
    1,958
    Rep Power
    79
    Points
    9,124 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chickenooble View Post
    Mr. President, Chicago's Gun Victims Need You Now

    source

    Yea, Mr. President... What now, playa?
    I don't see it as anything other than another article blaming video games (and Hollywood this time) again. Those in charge don't want to blame the city and the way they have handled things, they want to pass the blame onto something else like so many others have been doing.

    Gang violence is not something new that came about with violent video games or movies. Same for murders, mass killings, etc. These same people that like to point to Japan, Europe and other regions as some shining examples of society with their gun laws and lack of violence due to them, but yet they want to ignore that these same regions also have the same violent video games as the US(same for movies and other violent media).

    Has the American society really "grown coarsened, desensitized to violence, and too tolerance" to violence? or does it just appear so thanks to the media(news outlets, etc) and how much influence the media has gain and how large it has grown over the years?
    Last edited by Ryunosuke; 01-19-2013 at 05:13.

  26. #3722
    The Heisman
    DayWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    13,134
    Rep Power
    101
    Points
    1,035 (9,287 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chickenooble View Post
    Mr. President, Chicago's Gun Victims Need You Now

    source

    Yea, Mr. President... What now, playa?
    ... its like you're begging him to go even bigger on gun control???
    Logic fail.

    Personally- gang violence, while stupid, doesn't really bother me. Dumb thugs killing other dumb thugs. But that might just be b/c I don't live in an area where its really a problem and I don't see the collateral damage.

    All for suggestions on how to deal with it though.

    Universal background checks- still haven't heard a valid arguments as to why those are bad...
    Blah blah blah they might inconvenience law abiding gun owners... nobody cares. Wait your 6-8 weeks and be confident that felons and loons aren't "legally" buying your gun

    By Theft
    I am stunned that some people appear to love their Playstation(1,2,3) or Xbox(360) more than I love the Denver Broncos.
    Trust me, it's sad

  27. #3723
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,981
    Rep Power
    112
    Points
    42,781 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by DayWalker View Post
    ... its like you're begging him to go even bigger on gun control???
    Logic fail.

    Personally- gang violence, while stupid, doesn't really bother me. Dumb thugs killing other dumb thugs. But that might just be b/c I don't live in an area where its really a problem and I don't see the collateral damage.

    All for suggestions on how to deal with it though.

    Universal background checks- still haven't heard a valid arguments as to why those are bad...
    Blah blah blah they might inconvenience law abiding gun owners... nobody cares. Wait your 6-8 weeks and be confident that felons and loons aren't "legally" buying your gun
    Well looks like you just answered your question.

  28. #3724
    Newbie
    AmigaEngine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    17
    Rep Power
    0
    Points
    517 (0 Banked)
    personally dont believe there is another agenda.

    The young man responsible for the murders in Newtown obviously had some issues but when he snapped and decided to do what he did there was 5 guns (none of which he owned) to choose from and he chose 2 semiautomatic rifles and 1 semi automatic pistol instead of a shotgun or bolt action rifle both of which I would consider more sportsmen or hunting guns. That is the reason behind all of this imo, had he only had the bolt action rifle or shotgun there would not have been nearly the blood shed.

    This chart says alot


    think there might be a connection with the fact that the US has more people living in prison than the rest of these countries also ?

  29. #3725
    Newbie
    AmigaEngine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    17
    Rep Power
    0
    Points
    517 (0 Banked)
    Double post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.