Handguns

[Winnow]

If you don't like it, LEAVE

I'm sure you'd like that you mistake of a life. Settle yourself in for the long haul. I don't cry for bans or for someone to leave if they annoy me like you tissue paper thin-skinned lot. I'll voice my opinion about it, as will others. Hopefully it will annoy the fuck out of you and if it happens to ruin some threads for the gipper in the process, so be it. It's for a better cause than a wasted attempt trying to buy you a clue.

[vn_Tanc]

Gun control would probably not have prevented this incident. I'll refer you to the 2 worst massacres in the UK: Dunblane and Hungerford. Both nutters had legally-held guns they obtained under much more stringent control laws than the US would ever countenance. They also should not have been allowed to legally own those guns under the laws of the time, but they did.

Comparing cars to guns is asinine - when was the last time some nutjob got in his car and deliberately ran over 33 people to get his revenge on society?

By all means debate gun-control. Again. And don't forget to bring in criminals, cars, abortion and all that other straw-man bullshit. Again. But really, it's only tangentially relevant to the VA shootings, IMO.

[vn_Tanc]

If you don't like it, LEAVE

I'm sure you'd like that you mistake of a life. Settle yourself in for the long haul. I don't cry for bans or for someone to leave if they annoy me like you tissue paper thin-skinned lot. I'll voice my opinion about it, as will others. Hopefully it will annoy the fuck out of you and if it happens to ruin some threads for the gipper in the process, so be it. It's for a better cause than a wasted attempt trying to buy you a clue.

Shut the fuck up and stop trying to derail. Kyo owns you every time anyway.

Banning one moron for constant derails and negative contributions was plenty. There's no need for you to martyr yourself to keep Cart's torch burning.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

If you don't like it, LEAVE

I'm sure you'd like that you mistake of a life. Settle yourself in for the long haul. I don't cry for bans or for someone to leave if they annoy me like you tissue paper thin-skinned lot. I'll voice my opinion about it, as will others. Hopefully it will annoy the fuck out of you and if it happens to ruin some threads for the gipper in the process, so be it. It's for a better cause than a wasted attempt trying to buy you a clue.

Shut the fuck up and stop trying to derail. Kyo owns you every time anyway.

Banning one moron for constant derails and negative contributions was plenty. There's no need for you to martyr yourself to keep Cart's torch burning.

Winnow is right. Stop and listen a little, instead of attacking so much.

[Boogahz]

If you don't like it, LEAVE

I'm sure you'd like that you mistake of a life. Settle yourself in for the long haul. I don't cry for bans or for someone to leave if they annoy me like you tissue paper thin-skinned lot. I'll voice my opinion about it, as will others. Hopefully it will annoy the fuck out of you and if it happens to ruin some threads for the gipper in the process, so be it. It's for a better cause than a wasted attempt trying to buy you a clue.

Shut the fuck up and stop trying to derail. Kyo owns you every time anyway.

Banning one moron for constant derails and negative contributions was plenty. There's no need for you to martyr yourself to keep Cart's torch burning.

Um, that's normally about all Kyoukan contributes to ANY thread here.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Comparing cars to guns is asinine - when was the last time some nutjob got in his car and deliberately ran over 33 people to get his revenge on society?

I can show you a few of those instances that have happened over the last few years if you REALLY want me to.

Anyway, comparing numbers on gun violence across the baord is just stupid. 85% of all gun violence is in large cities and is committed by black males in drug related shootings. Now...I don;t need to be a genious to know that they are not caring if you pass gun control laws or ban handguns. They WILL get them even if they are banned. So......you disarm the law abiding people who have concealed carry permits and the only people left are the ones with the disregard for the laws and human life.

[Funkmasterr]

If you don't like it, LEAVE

I'm sure you'd like that you mistake of a life. Settle yourself in for the long haul. I don't cry for bans or for someone to leave if they annoy me like you tissue paper thin-skinned lot. I'll voice my opinion about it, as will others. Hopefully it will annoy the fuck out of you and if it happens to ruin some threads for the gipper in the process, so be it. It's for a better cause than a wasted attempt trying to buy you a clue.

Shut the fuck up and stop trying to derail. Kyo owns you every time anyway.

Banning one moron for constant derails and negative contributions was plenty. There's no need for you to martyr yourself to keep Cart's torch burning.

Um, that's normally about all Kyoukan contributes to ANY thread here.

Oh you noticed that too? It sure seems like a whole lot of people don't.

[Kylere]

In countries with strict gun control laws, people go nuts and kill a bunch of kids with knives. The body counts? The only thing a gun does is make a pussy feel they could do this sort of crap, so if we were able to remove all the guns from private ownership tomorrow, we MIGHT prevent a repeat, until someone googles poor mans james bond or anarchists cookbook and starts mass killing without professionally manufactured weapons.

I am not out of my fucking mind, so I would not BUT I could have reached higher casualty numbers with my SCA gear on, and wielding a broadsword. The scene would have been much more gruesome and just as nasty.

Regardless of the gun control issue, shit like this is going to happen, people need to quit claiming it as the cause of the week, look at Dr. Phil and his bullshit blaming it on video games, should we ban them?

Our problem is that our society ( Well all the western nations) is a failure. Nothing is going to get better with population increasing and raw materials running out. Give it 20 years, and this sort of thing will have become expected. That is what we need to address, and without boosting NASA I think we are fucked no matter what other calls we make. Frontiers create release valves for a society in decline and without lunar bases, Asteroid habitats, L5 Colonies, etc we no longer possess one.

[Vaemas]

The difference between a handgun and a car is that the only use for a handgun is to kill people.

Not that I'm supporting the car/handgun argument, but your handgun statement is technically incorrect. There are crazy people who do big game hunting with high-powered handguns.

A few links:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_hunting.htm
http://www.handgunhunt.com/
http://forums.sixgunner.com/Handgun_Hun ... _64/tt.htm
http://www.foggymountain.com/handgun-bear-hunts.shtml
http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunition/hunt_121305/

[Vaemas]

Comparing cars to guns is asinine - when was the last time some nutjob got in his car and deliberately ran over 33 people to get his revenge on society?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, because I can. There are cases of individuals using vehicles as intentional murder weapons. Sample cases:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... OODSI3.DTL

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/afgh ... ians-in-sf

There are other cases where a vehicle becomes a weapon due to misuse of the vehicle. Case in point: the old guy and the flea market where he thought the gas pedal was the brake pedal (can't find the link, but I think the story is well known).

Regardless of what I think of the car/handgun comparison, I don't think your argument stands well. I do think the abortion comparison was out of place.

[Lynks]

FFS, you can't compare the 2.

Handguns are weapons designed to shoot and kill things. Their size make it easier for people to carry around in public.

Cars are tools designed to bring you from point A to point B.


If people are that paranoid where they need to bring a handgun wherever they go, well then...I feel sorry for you. Thats no way to live. I'd rather live a stress free laugh and MAYBE die young than keep an eye out for what may or may not happen and die a few years later.


PS. I don't see what banning handguns would do. Just my opinion. There will always be a way to get them.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

FFS, you can't compare the 2.

Handguns are weapons designed to shoot and kill things. Their size make it easier for people to carry around in public.

Cars are tools designed to bring you from point A to point B.


If people are that paranoid where they need to bring a handgun wherever they go, well then...I feel sorry for you. Thats no way to live. I'd rather live a stress free laugh and MAYBE die young than keep an eye out for what may or may not happen and die a few years later.


PS. I don't see what banning handguns would do. Just my opinion. There will always be a way to get them.

The purpose of creation matters not. If the questions of saving lives is at hand, then if one is looking to eliminate a product that will result in saving lives, then the car would be way before the handguns. It is a very valid comparison.

[Xatrei]

Those who believe this explanation have pushed for gun control measures in response, reasoning that if more guns = more crime, then any measure which results in less guns must = less crime. Gun control has been a political issue for awhile, enough time for gun control measures to be passed and repealed in a variety of different locations. I don't think it's appropriate to make a blanket statement like "and gun control obviously doesn't work," but the gun control = less gun crime hypothesis has emphatically not been borne out by on the ground experience. The intranational comparisons tell us something much different than the international comparisons. This does not mean that the availability of guns and the implementation or lack thereof of gun control has nothing to do with the problem of violent crime in the United States, but it seems indisputable that it is not the whole story, and seems likely that it is also not the fundamental issue.

The number of guns floating about is not the only difference between the United States and the aforementioned countries. Another difference, for instance, is that our wealth distribution is much more skewed than theirs, meaning that we have a larger lower class and a richer upper class, while they are much closer to distributional equality. As a result, we have larger and more troubled slum areas than they do. Much of the violent (and gun) crime in the United States either occurs in these slum areas or is exported from these slum areas. Doesn't it seem reasonable that the slums have more to do with the violence than the guns do?

I fully agree that the unjust distribution of wealth is THE key contributor to the deterioration of the social infrastructure. This has in turn brought about the rampant drug problem and the associated problems with crime, violent and otherwise. However, I don't think that you can point to the failures of piecemeal control efforts as evidence that tighter gun restrictions cannot work. What has been sorely missing from previous gun control efforts has been a comprehensive and universal implementation. Regulations applied at the city or state level are easily circumvented because the neighboring cities, counties or states do not share the same restrictions, and those interested in acquiring guns can always hop in a car and go to where the guns are easily available. They're easily ignored because effort is rarely made to identify and control existing guns. Not until efforts are undertaken at the national level to both control the availability of guns and to get existing guns out of circulation will we ever have a truly valid test of whether control measures can work.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Sure you can. Take another controlled substance and see how well we can eliminate it from people that really want it. Lets say......oh marijuana for instance...or heroin...or cocaine. None of those are legal to buy, sell, possess, or use by anyone other than some health care officials. How tough would it be for you to pick any one of those up today if you wanted?

Guns would be even easier to make in the US than heroin or cocaine.

[Siji]

guys with small penises

A big cunt, talking about small penises.. coincidence?

[Xatrei]

Sure you can. Take another controlled substance and see how well we can eliminate it from people that really want it. Lets say......oh marijuana for instance...or heroin...or cocaine. None of those are legal to buy, sell, possess, or use by anyone other than some health care officials. How tough would it be for you to pick any one of those up today if you wanted?

Guns would be even easier to make in the US than heroin or cocaine.

That's not a legitimate comparison. Most drugs can be mass produced by anyone with a will to do so, and on a scale that even the world's largest gun manufacturers couldn't approach. Of course there would be a black market for firearms (as there is now), but it's just a matter of basic common sense that they would be significantly harder to get.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

If people are that paranoid where they need to bring a handgun wherever they go, well then...I feel sorry for you. Thats no way to live. I'd rather live a stress free laugh and MAYBE die young than keep an eye out for what may or may not happen and die a few years later.

See...some of us also have family that we would like to protect. It is not about just us. And last I checked no one was FORCING you to have or carry one.....but YOU deciding not to has zero bearing on whether or not a trained and responsible person should be able to.

[Lynks]

Policemen are trained. The common Joe Blow is not. Leave the shooting to the professionals before you kill an innocent person nearby.

[masteen]

... I could have reached higher casualty numbers with my SCA gear on, and wielding a broadsword. The scene would have been much more gruesome and just as nasty.

Come back here so that I may brain thee!!!

[Vaemas]

FFS, you can't compare the 2.

Handguns are weapons designed to shoot and kill things. Their size make it easier for people to carry around in public.

Cars are tools designed to bring you from point A to point B.

I didn't say you could or could not compare the two.

What I said was that vehicles can and have been used as weapons to kill people (in response to Tanc's reason why the car/firearm comparison was invalid). In response to your statement above, the prevalence of automobiles in public makes people less aware of the potential danger of a vehicle.

Firearms are designed to fire a projectile. What the shooter intends to do with the projectile that the firearm releases is what turns it from a tool to a murder weapon. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to prevent individuals from owning and/or operating a firearm, just as there are plenty of legitimate reasons to prevent individuals from driving an automobile.

I could really care less whether people view cars as they do firearms. There are distinct differences between the two, but each have significant potential for causing injury and death. What I am interested in is a logical, well thought out reasoning why you cannot compare the two.

[Sueven]

I fully agree that the unjust distribution of wealth is THE key contributor to the deterioration of the social infrastructure. This has in turn brought about the rampant drug problem and the associated problems with crime, violent and otherwise. However, I don't think that you can point to the failures of piecemeal control efforts as evidence that tighter gun restrictions cannot work. What has been sorely missing from previous gun control efforts has been a comprehensive and universal implementation. Regulations applied at the city or state level are easily circumvented because the neighboring cities, counties or states do not share the same restrictions, and those interested in acquiring guns can always hop in a car and go to where the guns are easily available. They're easily ignored because effort is rarely made to identify and control existing guns. Not until efforts are undertaken at the national level to both control the availability of guns and to get existing guns out of circulation will we ever have a truly valid test of whether control measures can work.

Agreed. Doesn't necessarily mean that co-ordinated, nationwide control measures would work, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility. Of course, effective implementation of such a plan would require time and debate in order to build consensus and political will, and requires the abandonment of the scattered, piecemeal gun control measures we're currently focusing on.

There is also an issue of short-term versus long-term effects. It seems possible that the immediate consequence of such a ban would be an increase in gun violence, for all the reasons that gun control opponents have been citing (that is, only law abiding citizens will turn in guns, criminals will know they have easy targets, etc). This is partially because there will be no immediate relevant decrease in the quantity of guns in society (because the ones we're concerned about won't be voluntarily turned in). Over time, however, many of these weapons could be removed from circulation, via illegal gun amnesty programs, gun buy-back programs, confiscation by law enforcement and so on. These mechanisms (in addition to the fact that they're now illegal) would contribute to a shrinking of the total number of guns in society. On the other hand, guns would still be added to society, via illegal manufacture and import. It seems safe to assume that the subtraction would exceed the addition, and there would be fewer total guns in society, hopefully coinciding with a decline in gun violence.

So there are mechanisms operating on both sides: Fewer total guns in society puts downward pressure on rates of violent crime (a more long run effect), while the poor distribution of the guns (criminals have 'em, citizens don't) puts upward pressure on rates of violent crime (an effect which won't go away but is concentrated in the short term). The real empirical challenge is to figure out whether the downward pressure will ever eclipse the upward pressure, and, if so, to figure out how long it'll take to do so.

PS: There would be huge difficulties with producing guns, heroin, or cocaine en masse in the United States. It's not like a gun factory is an easy thing to set up, but at the same time, poppy and coca fields aren't the easiest things to deal with either. I think it's an open question as to which is more difficult.

[Lynks]

Firearms are designed to fire a projectile.

The only reason to fire a projectile is to kill something or to practice killing something.

Other differences between guns and cars. Cars are much bigger and louder. You can see an oncoming car drive toward you. Guns, you won't even see them coming.

You kill someone with a car, 99% of the time, they will know who did it. Guns, I don't know what the percentage is, but I would assume much lower.

[Vaemas]

The only reason to fire a projectile is to kill something or to practice killing something.

Wrong again. Believe it or not, there is a whole sport shooting industry with folks who enjoy target shooting that will never kill anything. The weapons they use are designed for high accuracy but aren't suited to game hunting.

The rest of your post isn't even worth addressing. You're spouting shit and throwing out percentages while making gross assumptions.

Like I said, come up with a logical, thought out argument.

[Lynks]

Kinda hard when you are sticking your head in the sand.


A car is a tool to make life better.
A gun is a weapon and used for recreational purposes to practice using it as a weapon. A weapon in this case is to destroy something. Be it a man or an object. I'll dumb it down for you. A gun puts holes in things.

Another logical reason why you can't compare the 2 is you can hide a gun but you can't hide a car unless you are David fucking Copperfield. This is where the size difference comes into play. Anyone can hide a gun in their coat, walk into a classroom and shoot people. Try doing that with a car.

You also have a better chance of jumping out of the way when someone in a car wants to kill you, or at least surviving the hit. Can't dodge a bullet...or can you?

I think the best comparison to a handgun is a knife.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Firearms are designed to fire a projectile.

The only reason to fire a projectile is to kill something or to practice killing something.

Other differences between guns and cars. Cars are much bigger and louder. You can see an oncoming car drive toward you. Guns, you won't even see them coming.

You kill someone with a car, 99% of the time, they will know who did it. Guns, I don't know what the percentage is, but I would assume much lower.

Holy shit. You cannot be serious. You must be trolling. There is no way you are still using your entire brain, yet focusing in on the fucking primary use of said object as opposed to the deaths caused by it. Who fucking cares what it's used for or what's primary intent is. It kills thousands more than guns. If your intent is to save lives, the choice is easy. You continue to fight this, because you like everyone else will choose not to fight against something they need or desire.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Kinda hard when you are sticking your head in the sand.


A car is a tool to make life better.
A gun is a weapon and used for recreational purposes to practice using it as a weapon. A weapon in this case is to destroy something. Be it a man or an object. I'll dumb it down for you. A gun puts holes in things.

Another logical reason why you can't compare the 2 is you can hide a gun but you can't hide a car unless you are David fucking Copperfield. This is where the size difference comes into play. Anyone can hide a gun in their coat, walk into a classroom and shoot people. Try doing that with a car.

You also have a better chance of jumping out of the way when someone in a car wants to kill you, or at least surviving the hit. Can't dodge a bullet...or can you?

I think the best comparison to a handgun is a knife.

Again you focus in on the tiny picture. You look at little examples and never look big. It's sad. You remind me of my wife. Grrr.

[Lynks]

I'll play your fucking game.

Why don't YOU give logical reason why you can compare the 2.

BTW, cars kill more people because ...hmmm, more people have a car then have a gun? Could that possibly be it you god damn fucking retard??

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I'll play your fucking game.

Why don't YOU give logical reason why you can compare the 2.

Read my posts dumbass. I already have. Numerous fucking times. Grab an adult and have them explain them to you.

[Lynks]

What? The saving lives bullshit? Is that really better than my argument about size difference and intent?\

Using your logic, whatever kills the least is the safest. Therefor, jumping in front of a train is safer than driving a car because people die to cars far more.

You're a joke.


Nice troll, you got me good.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

What? The saving lives bullshit? Is that really better than my argument about size difference and intent?\

Using your logic, whatever kills the least is the safest. Therefor, jumping in front of a train is safer than driving a car because people die to cars far more.

You're a joke.


Nice troll, you got me good.

No dude. Sorry. You don't get away that easy. Jumping in front of a train isn't a product. Try again.

[Lynks]

Fine, explosives.

You would rather ban cars to the public than explosives because by your logic, cars kill more people.

In reality, cars kill more people because more people have them. If everyone had TNT, I assure you, the death rate would be higher.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

More people die every year from cars. You're correct. So, if you care about lessening the deaths from products, you would ban cars before explosives. I agree. Well said.

[Vaemas]

Kinda hard when you are sticking your head in the sand.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one sticking my head in the sand. Likewise, I'm not trying to prove that a car is as much of a danger as a gun. What I'm trying to find is a logical, reasonable explanation for why the two should not be compared. So far, you haven't done a very good job.

A car is a tool to make life better.

I have close family friends that live in a very poor region of the United States. When the deer and bear seasons rolls around, they hunt to provide themselves with meat...also known as...making their lives better. To clarify: they are not trophy hunters. They gut, skin, butcher, and prepare the meat.

A gun is a weapon

A car is also deemed dangerous enough to be classified as a weapon.

Anyone can hide a gun in their coat, walk into a classroom and shoot people. Try doing that with a car.

Different venue, but also a weapon. There's this thing called vehicular homicide. Happens. I pointed it out earlier in response to Tanc's post when he said people don't just go out and drive people down. Except I'm pretty sure I provided cases where they do. Regardless of size, many items are weapons. Firearms do tend to be less visible and I've never disputed that.

You also have a better chance of jumping out of the way when someone in a car wants to kill you, or at least surviving the hit. Can't dodge a bullet...or can you?

I've never been chased by a car, so I can't really say whether I'd have a good chance of jumping out of the way. Since people do get run down, I'd say that we don't really have a way of comparing the two sets of statistics. As to surviving the hit...I don't think you can state that conclusively. Gunshots aren't universally fatal, just as being hit by an automobile isn't universally fatal.

I think the best comparison to a handgun is a knife.

From a concealment standpoint, I would agree.

[Lynks]

I have close family friends that live in a very poor region of the United States. When the deer and bear seasons rolls around, they hunt to provide themselves with meat...also known as...making their lives better. To clarify: they are not trophy hunters. They gut, skin, butcher, and prepare the meat.

People don't normally hunt those types of animals with handguns but rifles and shotguns. Isn't this what people have brought up here? The banning of a gun that can be concealed and not hunting rifles?

A car is also deemed dangerous enough to be classified as a weapon.

So does almost anything ever created. A broken bottle, fishing wire, an axe, lots of bubble gum to ram down someone throat.

While I think there is no point, people want to ban handguns for that very purpose (concealment), which is why I do not think that a car can be compared to a handgun (not the same as a shotgun)

I wouldn't argue if you compared a shotgun or rifle or bazooka to a car. Thats more of a similarity. One of peoples problems with handguns is that you can have it in your back pocket and you would never know.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Policemen are trained. The common Joe Blow is not. Leave the shooting to the professionals before you kill an innocent person nearby.

You really show your ignorance here. Most cops are worse shots than "the average joe blow" that is carrying concealed. We don;t just get to walk in and get a gun and start packing. You have to qualify at 21 feet into a 9" plate at 80% or better rate here. If you can't pass, you don't get to carry.

[Lynks]

Policemen are trained. The common Joe Blow is not. Leave the shooting to the professionals before you kill an innocent person nearby.

You really show your ignorance here. Most cops are worse shots than "the average joe blow" that is carrying concealed. We don;t just get to walk in and get a gun and start packing. You have to qualify at 21 feet into a 9" plate at 80% or better rate here. If you can't pass, you don't get to carry.

Your policemen must be different that ours cause my friend, who is a police officer, HAS to go through training every once in a while to better himself with firearms. Not just a one time deal.

[Sueven]

I know a lot of police officers. Now obviously rules differ from place to place, but in many jurisdictions, the requirement is basically that they go out to the range once a year. For many officers, this is the only time they fire a gun all year. An annual practice is certainly a worthwhile requirement, but it's a pretty weak form of 'ongoing training.' Many police officers are excellent marksmen because they put the work in, but not all are.

[Boogahz]

While I think there is no point, people want to ban handguns for that very purpose (concealment)...

Did I miss part of this conversation, or are you referring to "people" outside of this board? I have never heard concealment being the reason for a ban proposal.

[vn_Tanc]

If you don't like it, LEAVE

I'm sure you'd like that you mistake of a life. Settle yourself in for the long haul. I don't cry for bans or for someone to leave if they annoy me like you tissue paper thin-skinned lot. I'll voice my opinion about it, as will others. Hopefully it will annoy the fuck out of you and if it happens to ruin some threads for the gipper in the process, so be it. It's for a better cause than a wasted attempt trying to buy you a clue.

Shut the fuck up and stop trying to derail. Kyo owns you every time anyway.

Banning one moron for constant derails and negative contributions was plenty. There's no need for you to martyr yourself to keep Cart's torch burning.

Winnow is right. Stop and listen a little, instead of attacking so much.

Why don't you shut your god damned fucking retard hole for 5 fucking minutes? Do you honestly think I come here and post without reading? I do listen to the witless ramblings of fucks like you and by god you make me grind my teeth with despair. The fact that you then add an unfathomable and utterly UTTERLY misplaced sense of superiority and condescension to your diatribes moves your contribution here to beyond farcical and into the realms of depressing parody.

I read the thread and made my contribution (omg a leftie NOT arguing for gun control as the facile reaction to this tragedy). Then Kyo, as usual, makes a good point dressed up in comedy flames and the newly promoted biggest fucking idiot on this board now Cart has been removed jumps in and literally admits to trying to derail to keep his memory alive. For. Fucks. Sake.

You anti-Kyoucan (sic) brigade make me laugh. She reels you in and makes you look like fucking muppets every single time. I howl with laughter at your pathetic splutterings every time you get wrong-footed by her. Your stupid macho American psyches are so fucking fragile you cannot handle her and it's hilarious. Every time your gay little club gets a new member I smile more. It goes like this: New Retard makes a post. Kyo posts here customary welcome of said Retard. Retard curses Kyo, usually including lots of sexually violent imagery (another American Male trait) expecting her to run away crying and promise never ever to do it again if only the big scarey man will leave her alone. She comes back louder and harder and gives them a real taste of Canadian Sauce. Then they join the large gang of pussies here who cry about her every time she posts one of her trademark ON-TOPIC (non-troll) comedy (humour = positive contribution) flames. And now you're on the "omg ban her" schtick every time she ruffles your poor little feathers and threatens your egg-shell thin sense of self-esteem and manliness. It's pathetic. Take a fucking look at yourselves and try to grow a pair. A pair you can share in a time-share rotation because god knows none of you deserve two of your own.

edit: typos

[Lynks]

While I think there is no point, people want to ban handguns for that very purpose (concealment)...

Did I miss part of this conversation, or are you referring to "people" outside of this board? I have never heard concealment being the reason for a ban proposal.

Yes, outside the board, in articles that I have read about the subject over the years.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

If you don't like it, LEAVE

I'm sure you'd like that you mistake of a life. Settle yourself in for the long haul. I don't cry for bans or for someone to leave if they annoy me like you tissue paper thin-skinned lot. I'll voice my opinion about it, as will others. Hopefully it will annoy the fuck out of you and if it happens to ruin some threads for the gipper in the process, so be it. It's for a better cause than a wasted attempt trying to buy you a clue.

Shut the fuck up and stop trying to derail. Kyo owns you every time anyway.

Banning one moron for constant derails and negative contributions was plenty. There's no need for you to martyr yourself to keep Cart's torch burning.

Winnow is right. Stop and listen a little, instead of attacking so much.

Why don't you shut your god damned fucking retard hole for 5 fucking minutes? Do you honestly think I come here and post without reading? I do listen to the witless ramblings of fucks like you and by god you make me grind my teeth with despair. The fact that you then add an unfathomable and utterly UTTERLY misplaced sense of superiority and condescension to your diatribes moves your contribution here to beyond farcical and into the realms of depressing parody.

I read the thread and made my contribution (omg a leftie NOT arguing for gun control as the facile reaction to this tragedy). Then Kyo, as usual, makes a good point dressed up in comedy flames and the newly promoted biggest fucking idiot on this board now Cart has been removed jumps in and literally admits to trying to derail to keep his memory alive. For. Fucks. Sake.

You anti-Kyoucan (sic) brigade make me laugh. She reels you in and makes you look like fucking muppets every single time. I howl with laughter at your pathetic splutterings every time you get wrong-footed by her. Your stupid macho American psyches are so fucking fragile you cannot handle her and it's hilarious. Every time your gay little club gets a new member I smile more. It goes like this: New Retard makes a post. Kyo posts here customary welcome of said Retard. Retard curses Kyo, usually including lots of sexually violent imagery (another American Male trait) expecting her to run away crying and promise never ever to do it again if only the big scarey man will leave her alone. She comes back louder and harder and gives them a real taste of Canadian Sauce. Then they join the large gang of pussies here who cry about her every time she posts one of her trademark ON-TOPIC (non-troll) comedy (humour = positive contribution) flames. And now you're on the "omg ban her" schtick every time she ruffles your poor little feathers and threatens your egg-shell thin sense of self-esteem and manliness. It's pathetic. Take a fucking look at yourselves and try to grow a pair. A pair you can share in a time-share rotation because god knows none of you deserve two of your own.

edit: typos

haha. I remember someone saying that about me. Trying to lift me up and proclaim my skills at trolling superior and that I was smarter than the rest. I wasn't and neither is she.

Back on topic. You still haven't said anything. If you cannot comprehend how if Object A causes 100x more deaths than by Object B, object A is more dangerous. So, if one were to go willy-nilly banning objects, then they should ban Object A before Object B. This really isn't as hard as some of you are making this out to be. The whole point in this is showing you shouldn't be banning either.

In fact, this is a case in point of how one can completely derail the attention from the real problem. A madman who was sent to a mental ward and deemed a danger to himself and others was allowed to stay in society. We had a system in place and it worked. They caught him and saw what he was. Problem is he wasn't kept until they could fix him or until he died. That's the harsh reality. Focusing on guns is the distraction the media and politicos want., because the fix would be easier to fix and not as glamorous.

[vn_Tanc]

Back on topic. You still have said anything. If you cannot comprehend how if Object A causes 100x more deaths than by Object B, object A is more dangerous. So, if one were to go willy-nilly banning objects, than they should ban Object A before Object B. This really isn't as hard as some of you are making this out to be. The whole point in this is showing you shouldn't be banning either.

This is such an asinine straw-man argument that it's not even worth addressing. The argument is not about preventing deaths but preventing murders. And besides, I'm not in favour of a gun-ban as an attempt to prevent episodes like the VT killings as I said above. This guys had plenty of time to acquire illegal weapons anyway.

I do think the US's love of guns is a bit sick and your gun control laws need tightening. I also think the pro-gun arguments presented here are shrill and based on stupid notions, flawed logic and misplaced fear. But that's nothing new.
At the end of the day if you guys are happy shooting each other, go for your lives. Until you can buy artillery that can reach the UK I'm not losing sleep over it.

[Boogahz]

I read the thread and made my contribution (omg a leftie NOT arguing for gun control as the facile reaction to this tragedy). Then Kyo, as usual, makes a good point dressed up in comedy flames and the newly promoted biggest fucking idiot on this board now Cart has been removed jumps in and literally admits to trying to derail to keep his memory alive. For. Fucks. Sake.

You anti-Kyoucan (sic) brigade make me laugh. She reels you in and makes you look like fucking muppets every single time. I howl with laughter at your pathetic splutterings every time you get wrong-footed by her. Your stupid macho American psyches are so fucking fragile you cannot handle her and it's hilarious. Every time your gay little club gets a new member I smile more. It goes like this: New Retard makes a post. Kyo posts here customary welcome of said Retard. Retard curses Kyo, usually including lots of sexually violent imagery (another American Male trait) expecting her to run away crying and promise never ever to do it again if only the big scarey man will leave her alone. She comes back louder and harder and gives them a real taste of Canadian Sauce. Then they join the large gang of pussies here who cry about her every time she posts one of her trademark ON-TOPIC (non-troll) comedy (humour = positive contribution) flames. And now you're on the "omg ban her" schtick every time she ruffles your poor little feathers and threatens your egg-shell thin sense of self-esteem and manliness. It's pathetic. Take a fucking look at yourselves and try to grow a pair. A pair you can share in a time-share rotation because god knows none of you deserve two of your own.

edit: typos

Riddle me this if you can get off Kyoukan's cock long enough to do so. What brought Kyoukan into this thread in the first place other than a genuine love for our favorite 360 fanboi and a "need" to respond to one of his posts? The similarity to Cart IS there, but in more words than "HI CUNT."

[rhyae]

including lots of sexually violent imagery (another American Male trait)

edit: typos

That's a bit harsh. It's only some of the males in here, and they are all under the influence of evil video games.

[Sylvus]

I read the thread and made my contribution (omg a leftie NOT arguing for gun control as the facile reaction to this tragedy). Then Kyo, as usual, makes a good point dressed up in comedy flames and the newly promoted biggest fucking idiot on this board now Cart has been removed jumps in and literally admits to trying to derail to keep his memory alive. For. Fucks. Sake.

You anti-Kyoucan (sic) brigade make me laugh. She reels you in and makes you look like fucking muppets every single time. I howl with laughter at your pathetic splutterings every time you get wrong-footed by her. Your stupid macho American psyches are so fucking fragile you cannot handle her and it's hilarious. Every time your gay little club gets a new member I smile more. It goes like this: New Retard makes a post. Kyo posts here customary welcome of said Retard. Retard curses Kyo, usually including lots of sexually violent imagery (another American Male trait) expecting her to run away crying and promise never ever to do it again if only the big scarey man will leave her alone. She comes back louder and harder and gives them a real taste of Canadian Sauce. Then they join the large gang of pussies here who cry about her every time she posts one of her trademark ON-TOPIC (non-troll) comedy (humour = positive contribution) flames. And now you're on the "omg ban her" schtick every time she ruffles your poor little feathers and threatens your egg-shell thin sense of self-esteem and manliness. It's pathetic. Take a fucking look at yourselves and try to grow a pair. A pair you can share in a time-share rotation because god knows none of you deserve two of your own.

edit: typos

Riddle me this if you can get off Kyoukan's cock long enough to do so. What brought Kyoukan into this thread in the first place other than a genuine love for our favorite 360 fanboi and a "need" to respond to one of his posts? The similarity to Cart IS there, but in more words than "HI CUNT."

That's complete bullshit. Winnow posted something absolutely ridiculous and she responded to that and then actually made a contribution. Here is the entire text of her post.

Does wearing a skimpy skirt with fishnets increase your risk of being raped?

No.

Women going to bed naked increase their chance of being raped if a burglar breaks in. Should women be forced to wear PJs?

are the only analogies you can come up with sexually violent in nature? you really have to knock it off with this creepy fucking pervert persona.

Anyway, I used to own an illegal handgun when I was younger and single and living in a shitty neighborhood. It was not hard to obtain and it was quite obvious that it was originally legally purchased.

There are justifiable reasons to owning a handgun. They are probably far outweighed by the disadvantages of so many of them being around.

A shotgun is a much better device for home defense than a handgun. The odds of you missing is reduced and it is a lot harder to get it taken away from you.

I realize you don't like her, but that post had more content in it than any 3 posts that Cartalas has ever made. And where in there is she coming close to anything resembling "hi cunt" for no reason? It is a bit odd that Winnow would use the analogies he did.

[Boogahz]

Having a gun in the home greatly increases your risk of being shot by one.

Does wearing a skimpy skirt with fishnets increase your risk of being raped? Should skimpy skirts and fishnet stockings be outlawed?

Women going to bed naked increase their chance of being raped if a burglar breaks in. Should women be forced to wear PJs?

Where was it out of line? The original comment was so fucking stupid, it only deserved the same level of stupidity. I thought it was pretty obvious that Winnow didn't think his questions were serious. Kyoukan can apparently only focus on Winnow though, and we know how much you love it based on the number of tools that come out to play when someone calls it out.

[vn_Tanc]

Having a gun in the home greatly increases your risk of being shot by one.

Does wearing a skimpy skirt with fishnets increase your risk of being raped? Should skimpy skirts and fishnet stockings be outlawed?

Women going to bed naked increase their chance of being raped if a burglar breaks in. Should women be forced to wear PJs?

Where was it out of line? The original comment was so fucking stupid, it only deserved the same level of stupidity. I thought it was pretty obvious that Winnow didn't think his questions were serious. Kyoukan can apparently only focus on Winnow though, and we know how much you love it based on the number of tools that come out to play when someone calls it out.

Who said it was out of line? It's just stupid and incorrect as per fucking usual. Just another of the ludicrous straw-men being posted here. Kyo's response was measured, flame-free and anecdotal. Why are you crying about it?

Are you playing the "omg Kyo stalks Winnow" card? Because 2 minutes searching this forum will prove Kyo posts in response to many posters here and on many topics.

If Kyo's location was listed as "Winnow's mouth", her tag line was a personal insult to him and every single post of hers was a witless one-liner then your comparison might stand up to scrutiny. But it doesn't - it's just the bleating of one of those anti-Kyo pussies I was talking about earlier.

[Boogahz]

Who said it was out of line? It's just stupid and incorrect as per fucking usual. Just another of the ludicrous straw-men being posted here. Kyo's response was measured, flame-free and anecdotal. Why are you crying about it?

My responses had nothing to do with the Winnow/Kyoukan exchange. It had to do with people like you jumping in to defend Kyoukan's assault on a sarcastic line of questions Winnow had posted as always takes place no matter what he posts. The sarcasm was not hidden by Winnow as I believe you would have noticed if you had read what it was in response to.

[Funkmasterr]

It does amaze me that so many people are jumping to defend her - she is a stupid bitch, and people like you that are constantly defending her right to be a stupid sarcastic bitchy waste of everyones time are beyond pathetic.

p.s. When you are making your next response, see if you can outdo yourself with how many time you can say straw-men in one post.

[Sylvus]

So the only argument for handguns that anyone has presented is the "fight fire with fire" argument? Since all these crazy crackheads and martyr-complex psychopath college students can buy a handgun from anyone they pass on the street as easily as I can go get some fruit stripe gum out of the vending machine, we should flood the streets with even more of them so that when shit starts popping off, we can all go Charles Bronson on their asses?

There are a number of reasons why handguns are responsible for more homicides than all other weapons combined (including those nefarious automobiles). Not the least of which are the relative ease in concealing them and the impersonality of killing with a gun that allows the shooter to remain physically and emotionally distanced from the victim. A handgun is inferior to a long gun for every application other than concealment.

Bringing up the fact that other things could have prevented Virginia Tech better than less access to handguns is all well and good. I don't disagree with that. There are a multitude of things that we could do in this country to make it safer and to increase the quality of every person's life. That's not what this thread was for though. This thread was me asking what purpose handguns serve, or what value they provide that isn't provided by something else that doesn't have as great a potential for murder, and I haven't seen anyone provide a good argument other than going an entirely different direction.

A lot more people are killed by cars every year than guns, that is true. Though the vast majority of those deaths are accidental. The same cannot be said of handguns. And cars actually serve a useful purpose that cannot be met with anything other than an automobile.

When something on a car is found to be particularly deadly (on an accidental basis) the government sets regulations making it illegal to do something (e.g. not wear seatbelts) or regulating something about the manufacture of said product (e.g. all cars must be manufactured with seatbelts). You also need to take tests, administered by the government, that prove that you are both knowledgeable about the laws and safe operating procedures of a vehicle, as well as a test with a government employee evaluating your ability to drive a car on the road. Tests that you periodically have to take again to verify that you are still competent in a vehicle's operation. It also checks other things that could be detrimental to your operating a vehicle, such as eyesight, in regardless of your proficiency. All vehicles must also be insured by their owner and registered with the state, with annual fees being required in order to keep driving your automobile. While you do have to register a gun, comparing cars and handguns is asinine.