Coli: What yall think of this picture

[Malta]

But you can carry concealed in two TX examples...but their murder numbers are still lower than Chicago right....????

Help me out...what's your point??

Negro, you just tried to say that Chicago was "unstrapped" and "gun free" your arguments to this point have either been wrong or outright horrible.

 

[killacal]

But you can carry concealed in two TX examples...but their murder numbers are still lower than Chicago right....????

Help me out...what's your point??

I actually thought you were trolling. But you're not :2much:

 

[Malta]

When's the last time a gun fired itself at you?

You should ask him -

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...pped-gun-fires-kills-man-prescott-valley.html

 

[newworldafro]

Negro, you just tried to say that Chicago was "unstrapped" and "gun free" your arguments to this point have either been wrong or outright horrible.

I actually thought you were trolling. But you're not :2much:

The argument remains the same........one city has tight regulations but more murders than two cities of comparable size but with little reguation....

So what's your point??

Your suggesting that a highly gun regulated city like NYC has fewer murders than Dallas and Houston, which are much smaller....but I bring up Chicago which has quite a bit of tough gun regulations, yet they have more murders, more than likely, than both Dallas and Houston

Not to mention your flawed unsubstantiated argument that guns kill more lives than they save, but you have no proof of numbers to back that up???

 

[Malta]

The argument remains the same........one city has tight regulations but more murders than two cities of comparable size but with little reguation....

So what's your point??

I honestly cant tell if you're trolling or not

You were wrong, then tried to just flip your argument the other way, do you not see how that is?

 

[Mac Casper]

If you believe getting rid of the people's access to guns is going to protect you, than you are retarded

 

[DaChampIsHere]

You should ask him -

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...pped-gun-fires-kills-man-prescott-valley.html

He incited an action that made the gun fire. Again, you're only proving the point that human carelessness and fault is the cause, not the gun.

What gun, not touch or held by any human has caused a murder? Don't tap dance.

Fact of the matter is, no matter the weapon, there's a common denominator in all murders: HUMANS

 

[newworldafro]

I honestly cant tell if you're trolling or not

You were wrong, then tried to just flip your argument the other way, do you not see how that is?

really.....I think now you are trying to hide in the bushes and hit me with that ad hominem craftmanship.....I stated what I need to say...if you can't comprehend then I don't what to tell you breh...

 

[Malta]

He incited an action that made the gun fire. Again, you're only proving the point that human carelessness and fault is the cause, not the gun.

What gun, not touch or held by any human has caused a murder? Don't tap dance.

Fact of the matter is, no matter the weapon, there's a common denominator in all murders: HUMANS

If you remove the gun from the equation altogether he'd still be alive. There's no tap dancing, that's just an absurd question, a tool serves no purpose without a human behind it, the issue is that the tool in question has 1 primary function, to kill.

And there's a common tool used in the majority of murders in this country GUNS, 60% to be exact. Would the number of murders increase or decrease if guns were banned and production was slowed so that less new guns were ending up on the street? SInce the vast majority of guns that end up on the street were bought from commercial dealers, whether it's from secondhand purchase, someone legally buying a gun then selling it to a friend or someone having theirs stolen.

 

[DaChampIsHere]

Would the number of murders increase or decrease if guns were banned and production was slowed so that less new guns were ending up on the street? .

Can we really say considering that it's very easy to make a bomb and that you can still acquire a gun illegally?

If I want to kill a bunch of people, what logical thing tells you in your mind that I can't obtain such gun illegally or devise other means? Serious question because that's something that people for gun control don't seem to understand. You don't seem to understand that people acquire guns illegally. You also don't seem to understand that less that 10% of those 60% of homicides you are talking about are committed with legally held guns (somewhere around 5%), meaning that damn near +94% of murders are committed with illegal weapons. So again, what does this ban really seek to accomplish when people have shown they will commit crimes and violate laws to harm others?

Let's also pretend like this guy doesn't exist:

 

[Binary]

this is america though, not a commonwealth country full of fukkboys still essentially to that reptilian queen elizabeth.
there are many many things wrong with canada among them calling circle ham "bacon" and having a large french population.

so many things wrong with this post

 

[Malta]

Can we really say considering that it's very easy to make a bomb and that you can still acquire a gun illegally?

It's really not that easy to make a bomb, especially one capable of blowing up a building, if it were you'd have more than just 1 example of it in the last 20 years. When someone buys a substantial amount of fertilizer the ATF, CIA and FBI all take notice, when some kid buys a Bushmaster at a gun show, there's no record of it.

If I want to kill a bunch of people, what logical thing tells you in your mind that I can't obtain such gun illegally or devise other means? Serious question because that's something that people for gun control don't seem to understand. You don't seem to understand that people acquire guns illegally. You also don't seem to understand that less that 10% of those 60% of homicides you are talking about are committed with illegally held guns (somewhere around 5%).

Let's also pretend like this guy doesn't exist:

Why are you just talking about mass murder? There are thousands of murders a year involving guns, do they just not matter because they weren't all killed at the same time?

Oh, I understand people acquire guns illegally, you however don't seem to understand that those guns weren't manufactured on a black market. The vast majority of guns that end up on the street were legal at some point, they were either stolen from legal gun owners in burglaries, bought secondhand for someone who couldn't buy one legally or they were sold by LICENSED COMMERCIAL GUN DEALERS illegally. The fact that we have such shytty gun laws means that you will see a trickle down of legal guns eventually being on the street illegally.

Timothy McVeigh? Really, and people can fly planes into buildings, that doesn't make it a common practice in dealing out death. More people die a month in this country because of guns than McVeigh killed.

 

[DaChampIsHere]

The vast majority of guns that end up on the street were legal at some point, they were either stolen from legal gun owners in burglaries, bought secondhand for someone who couldn't buy one legally or they were sold by LICENSED COMMERCIAL GUN DEALERS illegally.

Sooooo, somehow you think a person who wants to kill another person is honorable enough to (a) follow gun laws, (b) not purchase smuggled guns? By your logic, laws against cocaine, marijuana, etc. don't really exist considering such high volumes exist in the US and somehow people don't smuggle/find illegal things.

Fact of the matter is, you expect honorable acts from people who have un-hononrable desires to murder which is a contradiction in itself. You also agree with people selling death to the public in mass amounts (efforts that shorten life), but yet don't want people to have the means (whether they will have to use such or not) to defend themselves (an effort that can prolong life), another contradiction.

If the object of the game is to prolong life and ensure safety for everyone because no one chooses to be murderd, let's restrict diets (kids don't have a choice in food outside of their parents means) and food items that are sold, let's cut the selling of cars (no one chooses to be hit by anyone), let's stop the construction of swimming pools and close beaches (no one chooses to drown), let's make drinking illegal (excessive drinking can be related to innate mental illness and no one chooses to die from drunk drivers), let's make smoking illegal (people don't chose to second hand smoke in many cases), etc.

But we can read and see you are not really talking about prolonging/protecting life and safety. You are talking about a false sense of security in taking away someone's legal right.

Frankly I have no desire to touch the Constitution, because once we give the powers that be the ability to admit that one thing was wrong, we open up free reign on the whole document. Sure, fight all you want to take that 2nd amendment away, don't be surprised when the rest of them go as well.

 

[kevm3]

Governments have murdered way more than criminals, so it would be wise not to give up all your weapons.

Disarming a responsible populace due to the actions of the insane or irresponsible minority will have dire consequences.

 

[2CT]

i'm just trying to figure out why every time gun control gets brought up people think that means ban all guns

how about making guns harder to obtain so some psychopath can't just stroll into Wal-Mart and purchase an M16?