Another shooting... :(

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

totalburnout said:
My buddy that I talked about having to put in the ground before that was murdered was almost positively murdered by punk gang banger kids because he was 6'8 280lbs. They surely weren't going to attempt to beat the shit out of him when they started a confrontation so what did they do? They pulled a gun and killed him. Explain that.
Click to expand...

You are so anti-gun its not even funny. And you're from New Jersey, a state that gets 1 year for every hollowpoint bullet they find within a 100 feet of your arrest (Not a joke).

Your friend was murdered by thugs that did not apply for a pistol permit, and go through legal channels to get one. They stole / bought it stolen / blackmarket.

You have yet to present a valid counterargument. I predict that in 3 more posts you will just call someone a name and count it as a victory.
 
totalburnout said:
See how is retaliation a solution, clearly its NOT a solution. It may be a temporary answer, but it will not solve the problem.
Click to expand...


Pain is an incredible motivator - if doing something could get you seriously hurt or killed, you wouldnt do it. Even a crazy fucking psycho knows that pain = bad . . a few .38 rounds to his dome will straighten him out.

If everytime a robber/crook pulled a gun on somebody they got shot or shot at, they would be less likely to continue in their ways.

Those of you against these arguments seem to think that ww3 will occur on every block in America. Ever heard of MAD??? Mutually Assured Destruction . . . if it works with Nukes, it will work with guns.
 
Steve, I have provided every argument why arming the populous is not intelligent.

You have provided none, yet you'll resort to slandering my argument. Congratulations.

I am NOT anti gun.
Do I care that my housemate has guns? No.
Do I care that my grandfather has guns? No.
Do I care that hunting and outdoors things were the norm as I was growing up as a kid? No.

To say I'm anti gun because I think its foolish for peoples to carry a gun on their person for protection is foolish. I'm anti gun abuse. I'm anti creating situations where the negative effects far outweigh the positive ones.

I live in an area where I'm sure I'm much more threatened then any area in CT, but do I feel the need to be so insecure to carry a gun on myself at all times? No, because thats just asking for trouble.

Have I talked to my housemates about how badly I would beat, stab, shoot, maim, kill, or injure anyone who broke into my house? Yes and we were all clearly serious about it, I am of traditional thinking and believe that a man's home is his domain and not to be fooled around with but I don't think I should have the right to bring my problems out onto the streets with a gun on my person at all times.
 
Cashizslick said:
Pain is an incredible motivator - if doing something could get you seriously hurt or killed, you wouldnt do it. Even a crazy fucking psycho knows that pain = bad . . a few .38 rounds to his dome will straighten him out.

If everytime a robber/crook pulled a gun on somebody they got shot or shot at, they would be less likely to continue in their ways.

Those of you against these arguments seem to think that ww3 will occur on every block in America. Ever heard of MAD??? Mutually Assured Destruction . . . if it works with Nukes, it will work with guns.
Click to expand...

It works with nukes because all suffer. It will not work with guns, because the faster, more experienced person does not suffer, and now you're bringing in an issue of man's ego which we know is huge. If I think I can outgun you, even if you do have a gun, I won't hesitate to pull it - which is what everyone is saying about if the students had guns with them. Where's the MAD concept there?

Also then you bring in the idea of stronger gunpower. Okay if I have to back down to a 9mm, I'll go get a semi automatic gun.

Your argument will hold water when you assure me why this situation still occurs.

Why do we still invade other countries even when we know we'll be met with resistance? When we're absolutely positive they'll have fire power and we still go ahead and wage war? Apply those principles to a 1 on 1 situation. There's your answer that shows why your logic is flawed.

As I said, guns don't prevent problems - police don't have guns to prevent problems but rather respond to problems.
 
now wait wait wait.. hang on there...

Whoever Totalburnout is attacking... Listen.


Your answer does not show why your logic is flawed. don't worry about it.
You see... TB.. well.. tb just can't debate an issue.


:D
 
The idea that people will escalate the situation by increasing the means by which they hold power doesn't hold water?

Hmmm, then why as a country do we continue to develop more and more destructive weapons. Oh thats right, to gain the "upper hand" and have greater fire power than our potential enemies.

Bank robbers and gangsters did what to gain the upper hand over police and other authorities? They resorted to automatic weapons.

The bank robbers in California that were involved in that famous shoot out in the mid-90's did what? Full body armor and automatic rifles.

I guess reasonable logic doesn't work here.

Honestly, there's no getting through to someone who is blissfully ignorant and intentionally wants to be thick headed.

I understand guns have a use, a time, and place, but its my opinion that the average person should not be carrying a weapon. In the home, sure. Hunting, sure. On the street, not in my opinion.
 
totalburnout said:
I understand guns have a use, a time, and place, but its my opinion that the average person should not be carrying a weapon. In the home, sure. Hunting, sure. On the street, not in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I may own a gun at some point in the future, but it will be kept in my home and the only time it will be on my person will be when i'm driving to the shooting range or something.
 
pissedoffsol said:
Agreed.

I may own a gun at some point in the future, but it will be kept in my home and the only time it will be on my person will be when i'm driving to the shooting range or something.
Click to expand...

This, once again is obviously my opinion, but its too accessible if its on the person.

I, of all people, have made some poor decisions in my lifetime and according to the statistics I'm far more intelligent than the "average" person. If I have to fear when I lose my temper and the repercussions of saying things in the heat of the moment, let alone acting in the heat of the moment, how can I possibly trust the other guy?

Saturday night, I was almost in two fights over a girl at a party. When I party, I don't say anything negative to guys and I tend to flirt with the girls and have a good time, yet there's almost always an altercation involving myself with other guys even when I keep my mouth shut to them. It was 15 on 1, I was intoxicated and had no desire to fight, but what would happen if someone else were in my situation and upset by the situation, saw 15 guys - saw that they were outnumbered and resorted to pulling a gun to solve the situation. Certainly no good can come from that.
 
I'm pro-gun, and agree with what both Cel and TB say - but regardless of your arguement, if you are qualified to carry a gun on your person you should have the choice in the first place. My father and I shoot regularly, and I plan to get my full license when I am 21. Will I own a weapon in my household. Yes. Will I carry it? Probably not. But it is still my right to determine whether or not I need a concealed weapon. Maybe someone who lives in an urban area doesn't need a gun, but what if you are a younger female, who works 2nd shift and has to walk to work?

There are tons of arguments on each side, but it ultimately remains a right under the constitution.
 
You're only argument thus far has really been this:
What if something bad happened because a guy had a gun?
Wouldn't it be better if no one had guns?

And I have tryed to explain that this is impossible in American Society. So no, you'll never get rid of all the guns. It would be nice if I could grow money on trees, but that's never going to happen, so why suggest it?
 
damn y0.. gotta love how a tragedy turns into an argument here on the good ol' Hondaswap..
 
In Klyph's first post he CLEARLY states that people who are trained should be the ones packing to even out the playing field but for some reason the people who are against what he is saying, end up saying in thier own post, what he said in the first place about trained people concealing a weapon.
 
totalburnout said:
This, once again is obviously my opinion, but its too accessible if its on the person.

I, of all people, have made some poor decisions in my lifetime and according to the statistics I'm far more intelligent than the "average" person. If I have to fear when I lose my temper and the repercussions of saying things in the heat of the moment, let alone acting in the heat of the moment, how can I possibly trust the other guy?

Saturday night, I was almost in two fights over a girl at a party. When I party, I don't say anything negative to guys and I tend to flirt with the girls and have a good time, yet there's almost always an altercation involving myself with other guys even when I keep my mouth shut to them. It was 15 on 1, I was intoxicated and had no desire to fight, but what would happen if someone else were in my situation and upset by the situation, saw 15 guys - saw that they were outnumbered and resorted to pulling a gun to solve the situation. Certainly no good can come from that.
Click to expand...


and finally we get to the real meat of your side of the argument
YOU do not feel that YOU are responsible enough or level headed enough to handle carrying a gun
and by that reasoning you decide that no one should be able to carry a gun because YOU are not capable of responsibly carrying a weapon

i assure you that the only people effected by your idealistic "ban all guns" law will be law abiding citizens
criminals dont give half a fuck if they have to break one more law in order to shoot someone.... they're fucking criminals
 
totalburnout said:
It works with nukes because all suffer.
Click to expand...

We all suffer from violence, doesnt matter where it comes from.

It will not work with guns, because the faster, more experienced person does not suffer, and now you're bringing in an issue of man's ego which we know is huge. If I think I can outgun you, even if you do have a gun, I won't hesitate to pull it - which is what everyone is saying about if the students had guns with them. Where's the MAD concept there?
Click to expand...
Bullshit.

Anything could happen if you and another person both draw. Why do you think Cops are trained not to escallate a situation by drawing guns unless their feel their lives are in danger?

Also then you bring in the idea of stronger gunpower. Okay if I have to back down to a 9mm, I'll go get a semi automatic gun.

Your argument will hold water when you assure me why this situation still occurs.
Click to expand...
Bullshit

A 9mm bullet to the head will still kill you. Wanna take that chance?

Why do we still invade other countries even when we know we'll be met with resistance? When we're absolutely positive they'll have fire power and we still go ahead and wage war? Apply those principles to a 1 on 1 situation. There's your answer that shows why your logic is flawed.
As I said, guns don't prevent problems - police don't have guns to prevent problems but rather respond to problems.
Click to expand...
Why did you even bring this last part up?

:bugeyes:
 
Last edited:
E_SolSi said:
criminals dont give half a fuck if they have to break one more law in order to shoot someone.... they're fucking criminals
Click to expand...


Well said.


I have a right to legally defend myself, and be on even terms w/criminals - Nothing wrong with me purchasing a handgun to do just that.

I should be able to have an automatic weapon. Its fucking bullshit that those are not legal.
 
E_SolSi said:
and finally we get to the real meat of your side of the argument
YOU do not feel that YOU are responsible enough or level headed enough to handle carrying a gun
and by that reasoning you decide that no one should be able to carry a gun because YOU are not capable of responsibly carrying a weapon

i assure you that the only people effected by your idealistic "ban all guns" law will be law abiding citizens
criminals dont give half a fuck if they have to break one more law in order to shoot someone.... they're fucking criminals
Click to expand...

...you don't understand the meat of MY argument.

I know that I would never truly make the mistake of throwing my life away by pulling a weapon, I feel I have too much going for me to ever make that mistake, but the idea is still there in my head as I believe it is in the head of everyone.

All it takes is one poor decision or slip up to ruin the life of yourself or another one.

Unlike others here, I'm not being selfish and thinking about my own betterment, I'm thinking about the betterment of society. I don't feel that the message that is being sent by persons carrying weapons is a message that should be sent out to society.

When I was out in Montana at a pawn shop and some loopy hick had his gun on his side, do you think I felt at all comfortable or safe? I was at the mercy of him should anything happen. People will argue thats why you need to carry a weapon and I'll argue that "two wrongs don't make a right." As I said prior, its no solution to the problem just a way to retaliate and respond, which I don't think is the most mature or educated means.

Disagree with me all you want, its simply how I feel. The mindset of many, who I would consider "loose cannons" here in this online community, just reassure my stance on the issue.
 
Well I guess you are entitled to your opinions, even if they don't make any sense and are based solely on fear.
 
Cashizslick said:
Why did you even bring this last part up?

:bugeyes:
Click to expand...

Perhaps because its entirely relevant to the situation.

Your entire argument is that because of the risk of pain, people will respond in a certain manner.

Yet, as educated peoples we still start conflicts, such as war, even when the risk of pain or death is readily apparent.

Read the disclaimer:
I JUST PROVIDED YOU WITH AN EXAMPLE WHERE YOUR LOGIC DOES NOT HOLD TRUE. PAIN IS NOT ALWAYS A DETERRENT.

Its difficult being tasked with spelling things out explicitly for each individual on this board. I'm sorry if I apply abstract concepts to my justifications and arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top