can someone explain Liberal Logic to me please?

[Incredibale]

I would love to know what you blame for this other than the availability of guns. And a retarded gun culture to boot. Not liberal, commie or anything else. Just common sense really.

Considering that guns have been widely available thtoughout this nation's history, it cant be the guns

[Deleted]

Please show how I've clearly and loudly demonstrated fear. By adhering to the laws and rights of where I live? I think you are mistaking what is actually taking place with your own delusions.

Dude please dont let me call u stupid... u really are being stupid now... do i really have to repeat things 10 times so u understand?

U say that u dont wanna change the gun laws or the USA will become like Mexico... thats the opinion of a scared individual right there.... ur SCARED that your country will turn into MExico.

U also say u dont wanna change the gun laws because gangs will have all the guns... another loud and clear opinion of a SCARED individual.

U also say u want to have guns or u will become a victim if u dont... another opinion of a SCARED indiviual.

Ur fukking terrified of what might happen if u have your guns taken away... Fear Fear Fear Fear,

Ur a typical American dude... ur dripping with fear.

[baskev]

There have been mass stabbings, explosives, etc, hell when I was in Greece I heard about some dude robbing a store with a damn grenade, ended up killing the hostage and 4 officers and they have very strict gun control laws



Actually it's true, you hear more about tougher gun laws instead of what the root of the problem is, mental health. It would be like banning people from owning cars because of drunk drivers

Lions are not endanger of extinction... his hunt was actually done legally except for the part where his GUIDE loured the old lion off a preservation, weather he knew that was happening or not debatable.

- - - Updated - - -


Most of us find that having to take our shoes off is pretty stupid too, also John Oliver is an idiot.

nice response....but get your facts straight...lions are on the list of endangered species. 200k start of 1900. now adays only 30.00 left..thats 7 times less.
as for for the mass stabbing etc. Yes those have happened to. so have ugly guys like me dating super models. but 9/10 times that doesnt happen. Mass murders are almost exclusive to guns. as for the mental health bit........HOLY SHIT did you even do your homework? Its been researched to death. People who go nuts with guns are not usually crazy people...

Actually it's true, you hear more about tougher gun laws instead of what the root of the problem is, mental health. It would be like banning people from owning cars because of drunk drivers so twisting my words?? I am talking about certain guns ( machine guns/automatics). As for drunk drivers...if you ask me..if you get caught a second time drunk driving you should loose your right to drive a car.

[Height]

When liberal people talk about gun control what I take it as is that they mean controlling who has guns. So people control. Making stronger laws and protections as to who has the gun. Increasing gun safety education, restricting people who have done wrong, or who may have mental health issues. Really just common sense stuff that's almost impossible to reform due to people with irrational fears of their guns all being taken away and the NRA.

[Osmeric]

When liberal people talk about gun control what I take it as is that they mean controlling who has guns. So people control.

What did you think laws control, space aliens?

[Melusine]

I'd like to see you tell the survivors and victim's families of these mass shootings that "the background check is doing it's job."

So what's your plan to stop these mass shootings? I'll give you a hint....."sit and do nothing" is not an answer.

Removing the concept of "gun free zone" will make these incidents even less. Reason? Because assholes that want to immortalize themselves in history books through notoriety do not want to be stopped until they are finished. You know why these sorts of things don't happen in police stations? It isn't because they are cops and people don't want to mess with cops, it's because everyone in the station either is, or is highly likely to be armed, and will kill him.

And I'll tell every one of the families of the victims, it wasn't the background check that failed, it was the fucker that did the crime who is to blame. Your assumption is that every last one of the guns that were used by that person, they went to a gun store and bought, passed the background check, even though they should not have and went on to be mass shooters, when that is not only incorrect, but is a symptom of harsh stupidity, hypersensational and willful ignorance, or just plain being a dumbass who pisses their pants in the presence of a gun, as if the gun is going to harm them, even though inanimate objects have no ability to determine right from wrong, cannot aim themselves, and cannot pull their own triggers.

The truth is, the majority of the guns used to commit these acts are stolen, purchased off the black market, or both. A relatively few number of them are purchased legally, but at the time, there was no reason to deny the purchase. We don't have functional crystal balls, so, the idea that the background check is the fault of these is FUCKING WRONG!!!!!

[Naxere]

Turns out the Dentist isn't going to face any charges either.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ling/73811010/

[Melusine]

And your so-called huge rate is actually lower than the US by manifold.

Of course it's not meant to prevent all violent crimes, but gun control is a very effective measure in lowering the rates across the board.

I mean, only people like you who are unable to see the bigger picture will ever argue against a single law that has lowered gun violence, accidents, suicides and homicides to a tenth of what it would be that it is "pointless"

Citation needed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-33362387

Looks like I just caught you in a lie. Uh oh....

Seriously, the idea of suicides as a gun problem is to me irrelevant. A person compelled to take their own life does not feel compelled to die in the presence of a gun, but you take that gun away, and he reverts back to a normal functioning human in society. If you believe that, you're willfully ignorant, or gleefully stupid. What I am concerned about is WHY they decided to end their lives. Is Japan a very inhospitable place? Are there cultural stigmas in place there that don't exist elsewhere in the world, and if so, what? That is how Suicide is addressed, not by trying to take away a method of doing it, because then, the only thing you do is change the method without correcting the problem as best you can.

Japan is also known to have huge police presence, and a real fear of that police presence. That's not the kind of fucking world I want to live in, but to bring it to a perspective you might understand, you know how when a police officer pulls in behind you, the first thing you wonder is "will I get pulled over? And for what, exactly..." What would happen if, in addition to them pulling you over, they begin questioning you about things unrelated to the stop, and then bring you before a court, you get caned only to learn, whatever it was that they accused you of, you didn't do? What would happen if someone pointed the finger at you, and you found yourself in court because someone pointed a finger at you and said you did something you know you didn't. Interrogation is grueling, and you confess to it just to make it stop, because of how mentally traumatizing it is, and get fucked over by the justice system? There are a lot fewer safeguards in place to prevent this shit from happening to you there than there is here.

Criminologically speaking, a gun ban in the US would not lower crime, it would raise to epidemic levels, and if you doubt that, you need look only to Chicago, DC or any other gun control haven in the US to see it. I have no idea why this isn't headline news all the time, but then, pointing out that gun control is failing hard in those cities doesn't really help the position of the gun control nuts of this country.

Freedom comes with more dangers than enslavement, and that said, I'm willing to take the risks that come from Freedom, and living in a free society. If you aren't, there are places you can go to be "more safe", even here in the US, but remember, you were warned....

[Arenis]

Removing the concept of "gun free zone" will make these incidents even less. Reason? Because assholes that want to immortalize themselves in history books through notoriety do not want to be stopped until they are finished. You know why these sorts of things don't happen in police stations? It isn't because they are cops and people don't want to mess with cops, it's because everyone in the station either is, or is highly likely to be armed, and will kill him.

And I'll tell every one of the families of the victims, it wasn't the background check that failed, it was the fucker that did the crime who is to blame. Your assumption is that every last one of the guns that were used by that person, they went to a gun store and bought, passed the background check, even though they should not have and went on to be mass shooters, when that is not only incorrect, but is a symptom of harsh stupidity, hypersensational and willful ignorance, or just plain being a dumbass who pisses their pants in the presence of a gun, as if the gun is going to harm them, even though inanimate objects have no ability to determine right from wrong, cannot aim themselves, and cannot pull their own triggers.

The truth is, the majority of the guns used to commit these acts are stolen, purchased off the black market, or both. A relatively few number of them are purchased legally, but at the time, there was no reason to deny the purchase. We don't have functional crystal balls, so, the idea that the background check is the fault of these is FUCKING WRONG!!!!!

Hi, where did you get that number, please?

And I doubt anyone really points "background checks" as the 'bad guy'. It's just as lacklaster as it can be.

[Daelak]

The truth is, the majority of the guns used to commit these acts are stolen, purchased off the black market, or both. A relatively few number of them are purchased legally, but at the time, there was no reason to deny the purchase. We don't have functional crystal balls, so, the idea that the background check is the fault of these is FUCKING WRONG!!!!!

All firearms that were purchased through the black market, illegally, straw purchase, etc. were sold legally at one time.

- - - Updated - - -

Criminologically speaking, a gun ban in the US would not lower crime, it would raise to epidemic levels, and if you doubt that, you need look only to Chicago, DC or any other gun control haven in the US to see it. I have no idea why this isn't headline news all the time, but then, pointing out that gun control is failing hard in those cities doesn't really help the position of the gun control nuts of this country.

Of course it would. The restriction of the sale of automatic firearms reduced the automatic firearm violence to negligible levels.

The problem with Chicago and DC is the gun trafficking from neighboring states that don't have those bans, flooding the inner cities with weapons for turf wars. You restrict the sale or ownership of handguns vis a vis a comprehensive background check regime that ties mental health history and interviews with employers, relatives, neighbors, family, and you will see the the firearm violence rate drop.

[haxartus]

Everyone agrees that countries having nuclear weapons is bad, because if some country with an unstable government gets a nuclear weapon, it could kill a lot of people.
Somehow this logic doesn't apply to firearms, because "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
I don't understand how a person could hold both of the above views without going crazy.

[Melusine]

All firearms that were purchased through the black market, illegally, straw purchase, etc. were sold legally at one time.

- - - Updated - - -

Once they become stolen, they are no longer lawfully possessed firearms. See, the standard you are using is that you believe firearms are the problem, but if you believe that, the cops having firearms are a bad thing. We have a growing distrust of cops in this country, and yet, it's ok for the cops to have them, but not lawful citizens, that is fucking insane!!!

Of course it would. The restriction of the sale of automatic firearms reduced the automatic firearm violence to negligible levels.

They were already at negligible levels. Nothing like solving a non-existent problem.

The problem with Chicago and DC is the gun trafficking from neighboring states that don't have those bans, flooding the inner cities with weapons for turf wars. You restrict the sale or ownership of handguns vis a vis a comprehensive background check regime that ties mental health history and interviews with employers, relatives, neighbors, family, and you will see the the firearm violence rate drop.

No, the problem with Chicago and DC are that people who break the law are always going to get their hands on the tools of their trade. The real problem is that the victims had no way to shoot back. And if you somehow think the very idea of a thug just shooting it out with a lawful citizen, when that citizen has no reason not to put a bullet in his ass is also false. They run like hell the instant they are met with lethal force. I have made thugs run for their lives upon presentation of my Glock 17 3 times already, and never required firing a single round at them. Criminals don't obey the law, and will never submit to a background check, yet will continue getting their firearms, even if they are coming from other countries.

I think it pisses me off the most when a problem is only offered 2 extreme solutions, and not dealt with as if it were an engineering problem or a scientific problem. Ideologies and dogmatic assumptions that's all they are. When you use speculation, you make a speck out of you, and some asshole named Lation, which has nothing to do with me.

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone agrees that countries having nuclear weapons is bad, because if some country with an unstable government gets a nuclear weapon, it could kill a lot of people.
Somehow this logic doesn't apply to firearms, because "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
I don't understand how a person could hold both of the above views without going crazy.

But ultimately, it isn't the nuclear weapon one should fear, it is the nut cases in the unstable government that want to kill multitudes of people they deem as enemies to their religion, ideology, or as a result of being enemies of peace.

If you somehow think this doesn't apply to firearms, nut case governments with a large number of conscripted soldiers, all armed with firearms, should also terrify you, but again, it isn't the soldiers you should fear the most, it is their leader.

Our country has nukes. Plenty of them, not to mention. The only people who fear that are the fuckers who, if they also had nukes, would use them. We have a great deal of restraint. We aren't out to kill all the infidels. We aren't delegated by some false god to wage war on non-believers, so, most people don't actually agree that a country having nukes is bad.

During WW2, Switzerland was neutral, and it was in the dead center of Europe. So, do you honestly think Hitler sat down at a table and spoke with a Swiss ambassador about joining the war effort, the ambassador said, "No, we're going to sit this one out. We just don't want involved." and Hitler was like, "Oh, ok, if you change your mind though, give us a holler." Nope. Switzerland was heavily armed and incredibly well-trained. The Nazis would have been sent home in body bags, and Hitler knew it. He took no action against the Swiss, and they did not begin a military siege against Nazi occupied territories. Another example of how guns in the hands of the lawful and peace-loving, during WW2 on the other side of the world, Japan had no desire to try to invade the US mainland, citing that "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." They weren't talking about our military. Our military was stretched very thin, as it was fighting a war on 2 fronts. But at the time, it had approximately 50 million gun owners in it, and they scared the shit out of the Japanese Axis forces.

That is called peace through superior firepower. And it is on a grand scale. If the same set up was instituted in the US that removed ALL gun-free zones, encouraged firearm owners to carry if they desired to, offered training for those who desired it at decent prices, and encouraged the citizenry to take out shitbags doing very egregious things in public with extreme prejudice, like it used to be, the concept of the mass shooting would be driven into hell where it belongs, because the same fuckers that want to enter the annals of US history will be scared to death to try doing things like shooting up schools, banks, post offices or any other place "protected" by the gun free zone. They will appear to a wanna be mass murderer as if they are walking into a police station, where the likely outcome of them attempting to kill people is measured in seconds, and often ends up with a body count of one, theirs. The time they get to commit the kind of violence incurred by a shooting spree is measured in seconds, not minutes, a half hour or until the asshole runs out of ammo.

And before you chime in that more guns will just lead to more violence, that's possible, but the kind of violence it leads to involves a person shooting a mass murderer in progress, especially when people are well trained with firearms, and no one should be compelled to carry them. Those who do wish to carry them have a very good record for not shooting the wrong person. In fact, the police are more likely to shoot the wrong person by a factor of 5 to 6 times, but this isn't a slam on cops. They generally aren't first responders, and that all by itself complicates the police officer's job tremendously. And police officers aren't given disincentive to shoot the right person, and an accident on behalf of a police officer shooting the wrong person is rarely something that is or can be punished. The same is not true of a law abiding gun owner, and they tend more often than not to be first responders, since a majority of criminals are smart enough not to be committing crimes in the vicinity of the cops.

Wrap your head around that. See if you don't get a little bit of clarity.