Gunman opens fire at Oregon mall outside of Portland

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,671
93,360
Go get a paintball gun if you wanna shoot shit. Owning a deadly weapon for entertainment isn't an argument a reasonable person can make.

Also, I'd like to see some numbers on bystanders killed by stray bullets compared to I dunno, stray ninja stars or dagger throwing gypsies.
Cars are deadly, how many people own those for entertainment? Cars kill twice as many people as guns each year(orders of magnitude more maliciously/accidentally, considering half of all gun deaths are just idiots committing suicide).

Also Id like to see numbers on how many innocdent people are hit and maimed/killed by cars each year compared ot say ohh ninja stars.
 

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,446
2,230
Pretty sure there's no one on this forum from a no-guns country that will agree with you guys.
I am not the least bit interested in the opinion of people outside the US on what US law should be.
 

Fyro

Golden Squire
127
0
Can you please tell me where the second amendment references firearms?

Maybe they meant we should all have bastard swords. Or muskets? Or maybe they meant shoulder fired rockets? Thermonuclear weapons? Who knows?

It's rather vague.

Personally I think guns are fun as fuck and I also see the value of an armed population, but I also sure as hell dont want to worry about my wife and kid at the mall getting shot by some faggot with an AR-15 and voices in his head.

Also, arent semi-auto weapons with a reasonably experienced shooter just as if not more deadly than a full auto weapon? I mean unless the shooter just hopes to supress shoppers at a mall.
He was trying to get his suppression medal, I've heard that bitch was hell to get pre-patch.
 

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,446
2,230
Owning a deadly weapon for entertainment isn't an argument a reasonable person can make.
726568p.jpg
 

Fyro

Golden Squire
127
0
The problem that gun people have with gun control legislation and talk is that 90% of the time the people that make the laws dont know a damn thing about guns. These laws always single out the "scary" looking black guns that they all assume are full auto machine guns because they look similar to what the military uses. The reality is that it is illegal for any civilian to own a full auto weapon that was manufactured after 1986, and any weapon manufactured prior to 1986 requires a class 3 FFL which costs about 5 grand and 5 years worth of paperwork. Even with a class 3 FFL the cost is so high that it excludes 99% of the population. A vietnam era M16 (full auto AR-15) goes for about $25,000 and the ATF oversees the transfer of ownership.

So now you have people wanting to ban any semi automatic rifle with a detachable magazine, well there goes 75% of the .22 rifles that we grew up rabbit/squirrel hunting with. There goes ALL of the rifles that my hobby is built around. You end up with legislation like the early 90's AWB that effectively does nothing.

This is why gun owners start to go a little crazy when these conversations come up. As so many people in this thread have said, it is a social/economic problem and not a gun problem. So hopefully the anti gun folks will take some time to educate themselves and we can find a real solution to keep things like this happening.
Make you a deal. I'll keep my nose out of gun-control discussions when non-teachers keep their noses out of education reform.
 

gogusrl

Molten Core Raider
1,359
102
BrutulTM_sl said:
big ass pic
The main function of that object isn't killing shit (emphasis on killing). Bucky balls seem to kill enough people to get them banned. Anyone got some numbers on that ? Gotta be fucking humongous.

edit
cKuFLs.jpg


cKuFLs.jpg
 

Sulrn

Deuces
2,159
360
Make you a deal. I'll keep my nose out of gun-control discussions when non-teachers keep their noses out of education reform.
On the threat of derail, I see your point. It's been my experience that most local Teacher's Unions (including chapters/branches of AAE, AFT, etc) are corrupt as fuck. They're great for taking care of their own jobs (which everyone has the right to), but they seriously fuck over students in terms of educational benefit.

Leading to the point that most special interest groups need to shrivel up and die (gun Lobbyists after all the gun-legislators die first, of course). Self-regulation with oversight, please.
 

Sulrn

Deuces
2,159
360
Gogusrl_sl said:
The main function of that object isn't killing shit (emphasis on killing). Bucky balls seem to kill enough people to get them banned. Anyone got some numbers on that ? Gotta be fucking humongous.
Banning an object that can be used as a weapon (by design or intention) does not relieve the initial issue or it's cause.

I promise you, were I destabilized enough by socioeconomic and mental issues I could kill or seriously maim more people with my old Spyder Flash than most people on this board could with their personally owned firearms.

After I did such would you extend your ply for a weapons ban to anything that fires projectiles? Most likely no. You'd point out that I had snapped from all the shitty things that happened to me and call me a dick-less fucker for not manning up.

Cause and intent are the issues in America. Access to fire arms only increases volatility, however, gun laws do very little to fix that.
 

bytes

Molten Core Raider
957
638
A firearm is a tool designed for a single purpose; to either kill or at least severly injure a person. Saying "you could kill a person with a brick, do you want to ban bricks too???!!!", just makes you look dumb.
 

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
42,401
50,487
A firearm is a tool designed for a single purpose; to either kill or at least severly injure a person. Saying "you could kill a person with a brick, do you want to ban bricks too???!!!", just makes you look dumb.
Or an animal. Oh look, that's more than a single purpose you fucktard.
 

Sulrn

Deuces
2,159
360
A firearm is a tool designed for a single purpose; to either kill or at least severly injure a person. Saying "you could kill a person with a brick, do you want to ban bricks too???!!!", just makes you look dumb.
A firearm is a tool designed to loose a projectile with force, originally through the use of explosive (fire) powder.

Purpose or Intent is the result of the user alone. Hence modern marksmanship rifles, air rifles, etc. On a more technical level, your definition also excludes hunting.

My statement stands.
 

bytes

Molten Core Raider
957
638
No need to get so excited, i'm obviously not coming to get your guns. Guess the supermarkets are gone from the US and everybody needs to take to the woods, because that is why almost everyone who owns a gun buys one.

And Surln, you can't just segregate purpose and intent, because they go together. I would buy a hammer to drive a nail in the wall so i can hang a picture on it, i would buy a gun so i can shot and hurt who-/whatever the bullet hits.
 

Sulrn

Deuces
2,159
360
Last I checked, no one here was getting excited except for a few uninformed people trying to knee-jerk.

By and large the two primary reasons for long-gun ownership in the US are:

1) Hunting Game
2) Recreational Marksmanship

On a humorous note, with the below prowling your yard I'd hope you have something larger than a brick.

LaDonnaHagga-Klamath-2007.jpg
Giant-Wolf-Epidemic-Packs-Of-Giant-Canadian-Grey-Wolves-Are-Terrifying-Idaho-Residents1-225x300.jpg
bear-in-halifax-1-3a7f3a4bd1cdc42d_large.jpg
 

bytes

Molten Core Raider
957
638
That was directed at Gavinrad, who thinks putting something else at the receiving end of the bullet gives the gun a new purpose. Which is still, shot and kill.

The discussion is probably pointless though, if you could make a compelling argument, so that a person against gun-ownership would suddenly favour it, it would have been found by now. The same goes vice-versa.
 

Ritley

Karazhan Raider
15,719
34,246
I agree with you on gun control (or likely do, as I can only assume from your post that you are for "loose" gun laws), but this argument is the single most stupid shit that firearm advocates repeat ad nauseam.

You can't just look at something and say "This kills people too so might as well ban it, huh?". You have to weigh the benefits against the costs and determine whether it's use is a net positive for society. Automobiles are an integral part of our economy and standard of living, so I think that they fall under that net positive category 100% despite their annual death toll. I think that firearms do too. But I also understand that others don't feel that firearms add value to society.
 
922
3
That was directed at Gavinrad, who thinks putting something else at the receiving end of the bullet gives the gun a new purpose. Which is still, shot and kill.

The discussion is probably pointless though, if you could make a compelling argument, so that a person against gun-ownership would suddenly favour it, it would have been found by now. The same goes vice-versa.
I agree with you.

There is nothing wrong with killing imo. There are all sorts of philosophical points you can make against killing ever, but most moderate people understand that killing is justified in some situations. Saying that usually gets the hippie sound bite squad all up in arms though.

For those situations where killing is necessary, a gun is the tool that is desirable to own.

INB4 only police / military ownership. Not everybody wants to hide behind the skirts of the government and in many cases, the police can't always be there to protect you.
 

Sulrn

Deuces
2,159
360
That was directed at Gavinrad, who thinks putting something else at the receiving end of the bullet gives the gun a new purpose. Which is still, shot and kill.

The discussion is probably pointless though, if you could make a compelling argument, so that a person against gun-ownership would suddenly favour it, it would have been found by now. The same goes vice-versa.
Regardless. You're your own worst enemy in the conversation of Gun Regulation. Being naive to the other uses for a firearm besides the injury of another is one of the many reasons people are going to tune you out. Philosophy or Ethics 101 defeated your argument before the context of the argument even came into play.
 
922
3
Sounds like there might be a problem with Philosophy and Ethics courses then.

I think most people understand the distinction between killing and murder. Anti-gun people try to blur those lines.
 

Sulrn

Deuces
2,159
360
I agree with you on gun control (or likely do, as I can only assume from your post that you are for "loose" gun laws), but this argument is the single most stupid shit that firearm advocates repeat ad nauseam.

You can't just look at something and say "This kills people too so might as well ban it, huh?". You have to weigh the benefits against the costs and determine whether it's use is a net positive for society. Automobiles are an integral part of our economy and standard of living, so I think that they fall under that net positive category 100% despite their annual death toll. I think that firearms do too. But I also understand that others don't feel that firearms add value to society.
I agree with your statement whole-heartedly. Although I wouldn't say I'm for "loose" gun control, I'm just against going for a quick fix for something that isn't the real issue.

I agree it is a stupid point to make, but stupid is often the most complex argument a general audience can understand, thus its continual revival and use. This point being the slippery slope of curing the symptoms (or complicating factors) versus the illness. Which is exactly what most politicians do so they can take advantage of a situation and reap the benefits of "LOOK I FIXED IT!" without doing anything positive for anyone (except people selling ammo or meds to tin foil hats).