Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[lockedout]

Not my fault gun ownership has an inverse correlation with education.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...residents-guns

I love the pictures of Obama and Joe biden with their guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Now you're just making things up!

I don't see any math or science in your link, so obviously your post is irrelevant and should be ignored.

Yeah someone posted this earlier and I said that math and science say guns are never used in defense and if you attempt to use your gun in such a way you'll end up dead cuz science and telemarketer polls.

- - - Updated - - -

Cop hate, how specious of you.

You said the same thing about a different group of people, how classy.

[Mahourai]

Who doesn't hate cops?

Disarm the police and arm the populace.

[Ghostpanther]

Who doesn't hate cops?

Disarm the police and arm the populace.

I don't. I have no reason to. And I am fine with arming the populace as long as they do not have a criminal record or documented mental health issues.

[Mahourai]

Me too except also in both those cases I'm OK with people owning guns.

[Mayhem]

Yes, they literally are in the same category.

you heard it here first, one guy can kill another with a vote o_O

Yeah someone posted this earlier and I said that math and science say guns are never used in defense and if you attempt to use your gun in such a way you'll end up dead cuz science and telemarketer polls.

that is not what the science says, don´t be stupid, it´s likelyness not a rule

Me too except also in both those cases I'm OK with people owning guns.

you´re ok with mentally ill and criminals being armed?

[TITAN308]

you´re ok with mentally ill and criminals being armed?

Wow.

Typical, "why do you want children to die?" argument.

Hey Mayhem - have you stopped beating your wife / girlfriend?

Infracted

[Felya]

Wow.

Typical, "why do you want children to die?" argument.

Hey Mayhem - have you stopped beating your wife / girlfriend?

Are you following the last couple of posts or just flaming? The guy he quoted did seem to say that he would let mentally ill and criminals own guns.

[Eroginous]

you heard it here first, one guy can kill another with a vote o_O

What do you think happens when a man is found guilty and a jury votes on the death penalty?

that is not what the science says, don´t be stupid, it´s likelyness not a rule

When it's you and/or your family on the line, are you really going to put your chances on not having any sort of protection? Is a home security system/dog/baseball bat going to be good enough? Are you going put your faith in a tazer or pepper spray?

Or are you just going to throw it all down on 'hope,' and pray that nothing bad ever happens to you?

'Honey, it's okay, just let them do whatever they want. They have guns and we have our math and science that tells us guns are more likely to be used against us rather than help us in this sort of situation.'

you´re ok with mentally ill and criminals being armed?

I'm okay with people having the right to bear arms. I'm not okay with people being pigeonholed into labels designed to blanket deny people their rights. There are literally hundreds of different mental illnesses a person could suffer from. Most of them probably would not classify a person as a danger to themselves or others and those people can probably be trusted to own a firearm. There are literally hundreds of different crimes a person could commit. Most of them probably would not classify a person as a danger to themselves or others and those people can probably be trusted to own a firearm.

Your rights don't just stop existing just because you've committed a crime or are diagnosed with a mental illness. I'm not sure why you think you can just revoke someone's rights based on those circumstances alone.

[Rukentuts]

I see Egro is still arguing fantasy. Protection? Haha!

[Mayhem]

What do you think happens when a man is found guilty and a jury votes on the death penalty?

what has this to do with the right to vote? did you even try to follow the conversation?

When it's you and/or your family on the line, are you really going to put your chances on not having any sort of protection? Is a home security system/dog/baseball bat going to be good enough? Are you going put your faith in a tazer or pepper spray?

Or are you just going to throw it all down on 'hope,' and pray that nothing bad ever happens to you?

'Honey, it's okay, just let them do whatever they want. They have guns and we have our math and science that tells us guns are more likely to be used against us rather than help us in this sort of situation.'

no, i´m going to use the sort of protection that´s reasonable the most protective, without possibly worsening the situation

- - - Updated - - -

Hey Mayhem - have you stopped beating your wife / girlfriend?

what, i don´t, what?

[Ghostpanther]

?




There are literally hundreds of different crimes a person could commit. Most of them probably would not classify a person as a danger to themselves or others and those people can probably be trusted to own a firearm.

Your rights don't just stop existing just because you've committed a crime or are diagnosed with a mental illness. I'm not sure why you think you can just revoke someone's rights based on those circumstances alone.

If you commit a crime you do lose some rights. And if you are diagnosed with a mental illness you can lose your right to own and possess a gun in maybe all States? Or should be. At least as a min in Ohio, permission to have a carry and conceal. Any one suffering from a mental health issue for sure should not have access to a firearm or even drive a car. Both are deadly tools. And criminals should be denied such access to guns. There are cases where people have used cars to commit suicide and endanger the life of others in the process. Any mental health issues sends up a red flag the person is not stable. Surely you do not want unstable people with guns?

[Felya]

Your rights don't just stop existing just because you've committed a crime or are diagnosed with a mental illness. I'm not sure why you think you can just revoke someone's rights based on those circumstances alone.

Because we already do revoke rights based on convictions. A felon cannot vote, even when they are out of jail.

[TITAN308]

what, i don´t, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question


"Why don't you want children to be safer?"

"You want criminals to have guns?"

"You think mentally ill people should have guns?"

- - - Updated - - -

Because we already do revoke rights based on convictions. A felon cannot vote, even when they are out of jail.

And a felon should have all rights restored once he is released back upon the population.

If he is not safe enough to have his rights restored then he should not be on the streets.

Mull that one over a while.

[Felya]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question


"Why don't you want children to be safer?"

"You want criminals to have guns?"

"You think mentally ill people should have guns?"

Did you bother reading who he was responding to? The guy said he would let mentally ill and criminals own guans, followed by another guy claiming the same. That was not a loaded question, but him asking to confirm that it is what the guy he is responding to is saying... Which it is...

This is a case for reading and following the thread, which you didn't do and why you think it was a loaded question. Try reading the 2 posts before that question...

- - - Updated - - -

And a felon should have all rights restored once he is released back upon the population.

If he is not safe enough to have his rights restored then he should not be on the streets.

Mull that one over a while.

Should and are, do not mean the same thing...

[Eroginous]

Because we already do revoke rights based on convictions. A felon cannot vote, even when they are out of jail.

Yup, and I fully support ones ability to fight to get those rights restored. There's no reason to continue denying someone their rights even after they are out of prison.

[TITAN308]

And that is why "Should criminals have guns?" is a retarded question.

The system is broken as it is.

If they are not locked up in jail.... then they should not have rights revoked.

[Felya]

And that is why "Should criminals have guns?" is a retarded question.

I think you should link a wiki page for 'retarded' just to be consistent.

[Ghostpanther]

Yup, and I fully support ones ability to fight to get those rights restored. There's no reason to continue denying someone their rights even after they are out of prison.

There are some good reasons not to allow some convicted felon to ever have a gun. A person is convicted of armed robbery, injures a another person in the process and they should be allowed later to have a gun? They lost their right to ever have a gun when they tried to use one in committing a crime. Endangering others in the process. Some rights we forfeit forever when we disobey the law by committing a felon.

[TITAN308]

There are some good reasons not to allow some convicted felon to ever have a gun. A person is convicted of armed robbery, injures a another person in the process and they should be allowed later to have a gun? They lost their right to ever have a gun when they tried to use one in committing a crime. Endangering others in the process. Some rights we forfeit forever when we disobey the law.

If they are to dangerous to have their rights restored then they are to dangerous to be on the streets.

[Felya]

Yup, and I fully support ones ability to fight to get those rights restored. There's no reason to continue denying someone their rights even after they are out of prison.

I disagree, one of the repercussions of abusing rights, should be their loss. Use guns to shoot people? Sorry, your right is revoked based on your actions. I'd even be down for them having to go door to door and tell their neighbors that they cannot be trusted around a weapon.

- - - Updated - - -

If they are to dangerous to have their rights restored then they are to dangerous to be on the streets.

You are willing to violate their right to due presses?