Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

Also, if you rob people, beat them, get in a fight with officers, beat them over the head with a radio... Yes you are going to get shot. That's... actually a pretty normal reaction.

A normal reaction? He only used his fist and a radio. You cant compare that to a pistole.

[Mayhem]

A normal reaction? He only used his fist and a radio. You cant compare that to a pistole.

So you went from "police shoot and kill unarmed men" to "you can´t compare the radio (he used as weapon) to a pistole"? Yeah, they probably maybe could´ve used tasers instead but really this is in no way news worty and certainly not the way you try to portray it.

[chazus]

A normal reaction? He only used his fist and a radio. You cant compare that to a pistole.

Yeah. I can. It's.... really not hard to do some serious harm with a radio to the temple. If he... like... threw it? or something...? Not so much? But you can definitely kill someone with 2-3 good solid blows to the skull in the right spot with something like that.

[tylenol]

One day a certain group of people will realize the crowd they've hung out with for as long as they can remember was the wrong crowd to hang out with and get in with another crowd that doesn't exile you when you try to educate yourself or exile you when you speak proper English

Because if you try to better yourself that means you are whitewashed

[Ghostpanther]

This occurred yesterday.

"Police shot and killed a man Saturday after he turned violent as they tried to arrest him at an East Village halfway house, authorities said.

one of the officers fired one shot at David, striking him in the torso, police said."

http://nypost.com/2015/04/25/man-cri...-east-village/'

Is it just me or is the police getting more and more bloodthirsty in this country??
The job of the police is to protect the citizens, not to kill them. They should be used to getting a few hits here and there and shouldnt answer with a fucking headshot. Holy shit..

Are you implying we are getting more violent here, which would justify even more the need to have a gun to defend yourself? Or is this just a attempt to bash the police for doing their job? Or maybe suggesting we should disarm our police?

And sometimes tragically you have to kill someone to protect some.

[lockedout]

This occurred yesterday.

"Police shot and killed a man Saturday after he turned violent as they tried to arrest him at an East Village halfway house, authorities said.

one of the officers fired one shot at David, striking him in the torso, police said."

http://nypost.com/2015/04/25/man-cri...-east-village/'

Is it just me or is the police getting more and more bloodthirsty in this country??
The job of the police is to protect the citizens, not to kill them. They should be used to getting a few hits here and there and shouldnt answer with a fucking headshot. Holy shit..

Torso shot?

[Eroginous]

The two questions that triggered this. I already told you how you put words into my mouth, you even explained it yourself, you´re quite obviously unwilling to see it.

You quoted things that I said. I'm asking you to explain how what you quoted, equates to me 'putting words into your mouth.' If you can't or won't explain what I've asked you to explain, then it stands to reason that you are incorrect.

Also, if it were clear which two questions you were waiting for me to answer, I wouldn't have asked you which questions you were referring to.

Now I think I understand why others have put you on ignore.

One day a certain group of people will realize the crowd they've hung out with for as long as they can remember was the wrong crowd to hang out with and get in with another crowd that doesn't exile you when you try to educate yourself or exile you when you speak proper English

Because if you try to better yourself that means you are whitewashed

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Mayhem]

You quoted things that I said. I'm asking you to explain how what you quoted, equates to me 'putting words into your mouth.' If you can't or won't explain what I've asked you to explain, then it stands to reason that you are incorrect.

Also, if it were clear which two questions you were waiting for me to answer, I wouldn't have asked you which questions you were referring to.

Now I think I understand why others have put you on ignore.

What´s it worth writing the exact same things you did? You don´t think you put words in my mouth even when by the description you´ve posted you did. Nothing more to explain.

I wonder why you skip answering the questions though.

[Eroginous]

What´s it worth writing the exact same things you did? You don´t think you put words in my mouth even when by the description you´ve posted you did. Nothing more to explain.

I wonder why you skip answering the questions though.

Why are you being so dense? Asking you to explain your reasoning for making a claim will give us all insight the thought process behind your claim. Because from where I'm sitting, you're incorrect. No one else has agreed with you, not even your buddy PRE 9-11.

Also, I asked you to clarify which questions you wanted me to answer. Seems to me that if you were interested in honest discussion, you would give legitimate answers instead of avoiding them completely.

[Mayhem]

Why are you being so dense? Asking you to explain your reasoning for making a claim will give us all insight the thought process behind your claim. Because from where I'm sitting, you're incorrect. No one else has agreed with you, not even your buddy PRE 9-11.

No one agrees with me so i must be wrong? No one agrees with you either. Could you be any more childish?

Also, I asked you to clarify which questions you wanted me to answer. Seems to me that if you were interested in honest discussion, you would give legitimate answers instead of avoiding them completely.

You can´t remember why you started this whole debate about putting words in your mouth? Great. So i have to quote you again? The irony of you talking about avoiding questions is staggering.

[Eroginous]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0NJ17520150429

A perfect example of why guns and gun control aren't the problem.

[ugotownd]

This poor guy. Defends himself from two home invaders only to have the cops shoot him.

https://gma.yahoo.com/south-carolina...opstories.html

On a happier note the state of NY has to turn over info on the assault weapon registration numbers by court order. For over a year now Cuomo an the state police have ignored FOIA requests. I can't wait to see how few actually registered.

http://www.scopeny.org/ny-court-rules-in-ny-safe-case/

[BellaSwoosh]

No, it's just that the media gives these things more attention than they used to since that's what people eat nowadays.

THIS

Remember how we were all gonna die of Ebola?

[TZucchini]

On a happier note the state of NY has to turn over info on the assault weapon registration numbers by court order. For over a year now Cuomo an the state police have ignored FOIA requests. I can't wait to see how few actually registered.

Yeah. It will be great to see how many "law abiding" gun owners there are in New York.

[lockedout]

Yeah. It will be great to see how many "law abiding" gun owners there are in New York.

Almost no one in the world is technically law abiding, since you want to nitpick.

[TZucchini]

Almost no one in the world is technically law abiding, since you want to nitpick.

I'm referring specifically to the ability of gun owners to follow the laws related to gun ownership.

If you want to call yourself a "law abiding gun owner", then you sure as shit better be following the laws regarding gun ownership, at the bare minimum.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm referring specifically to the ability of gun owners to follow the laws related to gun ownership.

If you want to call yourself a "law abiding gun owner", then you sure as shit better be following the laws regarding gun ownership, at the bare minimum.

There's a difference between following all the current laws in order to purchase a firearm and being forced to follow pseudo ex post facto registration that didn't exist when you made said purchase.

Any argument to the contrary is just specious.

[lockedout]

I'm referring specifically to the ability of gun owners to follow the laws related to gun ownership.

If you want to call yourself a "law abiding gun owner", then you sure as shit better be following the laws regarding gun ownership, at the bare minimum.

You can't follow every law whether it's gun ownership or anything else. That goes for all gun owners including police etc. since you want to nitpick.

[Tinykong]

You can't follow every law whether it's gun ownership or anything else. That goes for all gun owners including police etc. since you want to nitpick.

You're talking to the guy who thinks it is reasonable to find, read and interpret all the various firearm laws between states when you are traveling.

[lockedout]

You're talking to the guy who thinks it is reasonable to find, read and interpret all the various firearm laws between states when you are traveling.

Well if you just repealed the 2nd amendment you wouldn't have to worry about that right?