Virginia Tech Shootings - Gun Debate

[Tyguy]

Could you really trust Joe Sixpack with a nuclear warhead? Could he even use it without destroying thousands of innocent lives in the process? What you're saying makes absolutely zero sense.

I know you're just using it for comparison, but it falls flat.

he was being sarcastic as well as making a point. :|

 

[Nemesis6]

what part, I have it on dvd ..tell me the exact time frame so I can see it myself

No part. He made a movie questioning it, that alone is enough. And if you choose to interpret the movie as mere "fact-finding", that's your problem.

you havent watched farenheit 9/11 have you ..that much is clear ..again point out exactly where he says the US government is responsible for 9/11 ..you just make up shit as you go along dont you?

Of course I haven't watched Fahrenheit 9/11. I didn't watch it when it came out, and now, knowing what a ****ing creep he is, I'm certainly not going to.
Spitting in the faces of the dead as Michael Moore did by making that movie is disgusting, and I'm not going to support it. If I'm going to see it, unlike you, I will check the rebuttals.
What about that? Have you ever questioned the things that he says? Have you checked out the websites dedicated to debunking his crap? I don't think so, and just as I assume you are unwilling
to do that, as unwilling am I too watch his crap.

what the fcuk are you talking about? the victems of 9/11? you dont think Haliburton is making money off the victems of 9/11? that was the justification for entering iraq. there is no greater definition of recieving blood money than the bush admin and their cronies who set up a virtual siv of US tax dollars to line their pockets ..from no contract bids, overspending on uncompleted work, to large sums of missing cash ...yet Michael Moore is the parasite here? you're truely a hypocrite ..and an ignorant one at that

To be honest, I don't care what Haliburton does. I'm not involved with them and vice versa. And I don't care about speculation either.

how would you know you havent seen it ..again please point to the specific scene in F9/11 that says the US government was responsible

I wouldn't, but I were to see it, I still wouldn't get anything out of it because it's a ****ing loony fairy-tale that holds no weight in reality.

I'm convinced there are times you dont even understand what you're saying ...have you watched the aweful truth? you'll get another chance to prove how "retarted" when Moore's Sicko is released in theaters

Ad-hominem! ZING!
And no, I haven't seen any of his other movies, although I've seen the pathetic crap they peddled in the commercials(random shouting at people with a microphone)

based on what? we've already established you havent seem the majority of his work? reading little green footballs again?

Well, for example, he deceives the interviewee(Charlton Heston), and when critics(Manifacturing Dissent) want to interview him on a fair level, he dodges and evades. See Wikipedia's page on his controversies. Or more specifically, this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Dissent

9/11 again? he's profiting from the dead? again do I need to point out your idiotic hypocrisy?

While you will no doubt say that the Bush administration is, too, that's none of my concern as they are already under scrutiny for a lot of their actions, unlike Moore.

how would you know ...seeing as how you live lear across the world ..you'd think american media would be hard to come by in your neck of the woods? oh and I'd like to see you prove most crime is commited by gang members ..here, use this resource, it's easy to find victemization figures

Not most crime, most gun crime. I should have elaborated there. Chew on this: Moore argues that the level of guns aren't the problem, but rather that the American psyche is the problem. The majority of murders aren't committed by NRA nuts. They're by criminals, so he's better off blaming criminals. He uses the easier target as a scapegoat: The people who legally own guns. Even you should see how retarded that is.

what the hell are you talking about? he didnt identify himself? what does that have to do with the 6 year old? you're not making sense

He identified himself as a lifetime NRA member. In other words, the meeting was under false pretense as he lied about his identity.

ok once again that makes no sense but I'll indulge your retarded train of thought and add my own little crazy photo

You're an idiot if you didn't understand that. But I'll repeat if you're really that stupid: The picture of a 6-year-old shot by another 6-year-old he showed to Heston he placed outside Heston's house as if to remind him that it's his fault.

 

[leib10]

he was being sarcastic as well as making a point. :|

My mistake.

 

[Flyingdebris]

letting every tom dick and larry be entitled to nukes is of course clearly a bad idea

for the most part, we have drawn the line at fully automatic weapons and high explosives and have been doing pretty well off that. The only problem is that some nutso will go and kill a bunch of people, tons of people will get all butthurt and emotional about it and start claiming "ZOMG OUR FLAWED GUN LAWS!" when they don't know anything about what they actually are. Feel good laws get passed, gun owners get even more curtailed, and once again more freedom is given up for percieved safety. Though in truth, LA, Chicago, and New York have the toughest gun laws and are the least safest places in america. So what are we going to do, work our way all the way down to fists and home made shivs?

 

[Jintor]

letting every tom dick and larry be entitled to nukes is of course clearly a bad idea

for the most part, we have drawn the line at fully automatic weapons and high explosives and have been doing pretty well off that. The only problem is that some nutso will go and kill a bunch of people, tons of people will get all butthurt and emotional about it and start claiming "ZOMG OUR FLAWED GUN LAWS!" when they don't know anything about what they actually are. Feel good laws get passed, gun owners get even more curtailed, and once again more freedom is given up for percieved safety. Though in truth, LA, Chicago, and New York have the toughest gun laws and are the least safest places in america. So what are we going to do, work our way all the way down to fists and home made shivs?

Oh, I look at all these countries with gun restrictions that have shitloads less crime than America and I still don't have a ****ing clue what's going on.

 

[dream431ca]

In Canada, most people own a gun. I have 2 myself. My neighbor has 3. If it's not the guns, then it's the people. In America's case, I don't think guns has anything to do with all the gun deaths. I think it's what the people are exposed to everyday. I've watched your major news casts (CNN, FOX) and I gotta say, that's some scary shit. But if your media is not the problem, then what else could it be videogames? No. Most places have lots of videogames and don't have any problems. Every once in a while you get a stupid kid who does the GTA thing, but who can prove that comes from the GTA game?

What is so different in America than most other countries who have guns? So, it's not the guns themselves, not the media, or videogames. Maybe it's the society. Maybe it's the way you grow up, or the way you are exposed to things. My point is, whatever it is, it is certainly not the guns.

 

[Flyingdebris]

well, as far as my opinion is worth, i think one of the reasons for the relatively high crime rate over here at least is that I think we've kind of created a sort of mentality where nothing is our fault, its always someone or something else.

"its not my fault i'm poor, its society's"

"Its not my fault i am a social outcast, its everyone else's"

"not my fault i fault i did (insert horrible thing here) i was drunk/high/whatever"

Not my fault, not my fault, not my fault, ad nauseum. When you have this going on in a massive way, it becomes easier to do things you know are clearly wrong, cause naturally, its not your fault. But thats just my idea on it, coming from a right wing semi libertarian bias. Take it for whats its worth.

 

[leib10]

^ Truth. People commit crimes with so much less guilt when they rationalize it by blaming it on their environment, their past, etc. It's so convenient for them, not so convenient for their vicitms.

 

[repiV]

Oh, I look at all these countries with gun restrictions that have shitloads less crime than America and I still don't have a ****ing clue what's going on.

Or all those countries with gun restrictions that have shitloads more crime than America. Like the UK for example...

 

[Jintor]

*cowers from the might of repiV's logic and dies*

/EDIT Can't... argue... with... repiV!

 

[repiV]

Do I have to type something for a smiley to work?

:E

Apparently so...

 

[Tyguy]

I don't think guns has anything to do with all the gun deaths

haha, priceless


sigged

 

[Flyingdebris]

well technically.... they are bullet related deaths

or rather death by high speed, low mass, application of force

 

[leib10]

Or all those countries with gun restrictions that have shitloads more crime than America. Like the UK for example...

Yep. They have a lot less gun crime, to be sure. I haven't looked at statistics yet, but I bet they have a higher number of stabbings and beatings per capita since they can't access guns as easily.

 

[Solaris]

In Canada, most people own a gun. I have 2 myself. My neighbor has 3. If it's not the guns, then it's the people. In America's case, I don't think guns has anything to do with all the gun deaths. I think it's what the people are exposed to everyday. I've watched your major news casts (CNN, FOX) and I gotta say, that's some scary shit. But if your media is not the problem, then what else could it be videogames? No. Most places have lots of videogames and don't have any problems. Every once in a while you get a stupid kid who does the GTA thing, but who can prove that comes from the GTA game?

What is so different in America than most other countries who have guns? So, it's not the guns themselves, not the media, or videogames. Maybe it's the society. Maybe it's the way you grow up, or the way you are exposed to things. My point is, whatever it is, it is certainly not the guns.

Can you own semi-automatic weapons? What about handguns? Shotguns? How easy is it to obtain these weapons legally compared to america.

 

[leib10]

I'm pretty sure handguns are tightly regulated in Canada, but I could be wrong.

 

[repiV]

Yep. They have a lot less gun crime, to be sure. I haven't looked at statistics yet, but I bet they have a higher number of stabbings and beatings per capita since they can't access guns as easily.

The UK has the highest crime rates in the developed world, in pretty much every category except murder. Violent crime excluding murder and gun crime is higher than in the USA.

 

[leib10]

Then there you go. Goes to show that banning guns doesn't automatically stop violent crime, just reduces gun-related crime.

 

[repiV]

Then there you go. Goes to show that banning guns doesn't automatically stop violent crime, just reduces gun-related crime.

I'm not arguing with you.
No, wait, I am - banning guns wouldn't reduce gun related crime either. You only have to look to the crime stats from Washington DC (could you live there and NOT get brutally murdered?) to know that. Also, gun crime shot up after the handgun ban here in 1997.
The reason gun crime is comparitively low here is probably two-fold - low supply and a completely gun-phobic culture.

 

[leib10]

I'll agree with the low supply and gun phobia in the UK, but here in America things are a bit different. There is a HUGE supply of firearms that can effortlessly be smuggled in from areas with more lax gun laws into zones where certain types of guns are restricted, such as California, New York, etc. Thus, banning guns only in certain areas only denies people from buying the guns in those places, not from smuggling them in from elsewhere and then using them.

 

[repiV]

I'll agree with the low supply and gun phobia in the UK, but here in America things are a bit different. There is a HUGE supply of firearms that can effortlessly be smuggled in from areas with more lax gun laws into zones where certain types of guns are restricted, such as California, New York, etc. Thus, banning guns only in certain areas only denies people from buying the guns in those places, not from smuggling them in from elsewhere and then using them.

Yup.
Or smuggling them in then selling them on the black market.

 

[leib10]

Hell, you can even smuggle them in from other countries, such as Mexico. Here in El Paso, it's not unheard of for firearms to be smuggled in through the lax border checks from Ciudad Juarez. Don't even get me started how it easy it is for illegal immigrants to get in. Hell, they could bring guns and drugs in too if they wanted.

 

[repiV]

Hell, you can even smuggle them in from other countries, such as Mexico. Here in El Paso, it's not unheard of for firearms to be smuggled in through the lax border checks from Ciudad Juarez. Don't even get me started how it easy it is for illegal immigrants to get in. Hell, they could bring guns and drugs in too if they wanted.

Personally, I think I've figured out the best way to get the right to remain in the US...

Forget doing anything like demonstrating to the relevant authorities the extent of my abilities, cultural fit and what I could bring to the country, that's just crazy talk. I should go and teach English in Mexico for a while, then sneak across the border. Assemble cardboard boxes for a few years and then get automatic citizenship...

 

[leib10]

That's the way it happens. And there's no shortage of people who do that. In El Paso, a city of about a million, there are estimates in the range of 15-25% of those are illegal immigrants. It's disgusting. I can't wait to get out of here. Only two more months...

 

[repiV]

Where you off to?

 

[leib10]

Lubbock, Texas. I'm transferring to Texas Tech. It's only a five hour drive, but it's far enough to get away from the illegal immigrant problem, for the most part. I'm very glad to be going. It'll get out of this shitty town, my shitty job, and away from shitty people. I hope.

 

[CptStern]

I'm not arguing with you.
No, wait, I am - banning guns wouldn't reduce gun related crime either. You only have to look to the crime stats from Washington DC (could you live there and NOT get brutally murdered?) to know that. Also, gun crime shot up after the handgun ban here in 1997.

we've been through this before repiv, crime went up but not gun related crime, it actually took a dip and has been every year since it's introduction ...fbi crime stats point out that a gun ban hasnt stopped guns from coming in from the surrounding area of washington however that does little to dispel the FACT that a ban on firearms has dropped GUN related crime

 

[repiV]

we've been through this before repiv, crime went up but not gun related crime, it actually took a dip and has been every year since it's introduction ...fbi crime stats point out that a gun ban hasnt stopped guns from coming in from the surrounding area of washington however that does little to dispel the FACT that a ban on firearms has dropped GUN related crime

We've been through this before, yes, and I showed you numerous official statistics demonstrating that the gun crime and murder rate in DC is something like ten times (might have even been more) higher than the national average and rivals that found in South Africa, a trend that started after the gun ban.
You conviniently forgot to reply afterwards and seemingly forgot all about the outcome of that discussion.

 

[CptStern]

so what? it was like that before the ban ..it's no longer the murder captial of the US ..and that's only since the ban came into place


I'm tired of this debate ..it's completely circular and about as effective as pissing in the wind: gun advocates will defend their right despite any evidence that proves them wrong ..it's rather annoying as nothing is ever accomplished ..there is NO rational pro-gun voice ..it's all "bob and weave" style debating


and no I did not forget that thread ..I ignored it because of the reasons I've stated before ..even when law enforcement says crime has dipped it's not good enough for gun advocateds ..almost as if they NEED washington to be a failure because it would mean that fundamentally they are wrong .but dont expect me to get into a prolonged debate about this as I'm tired of regurgitating the same facts only to be ignored ..not worth the effort

 

[repiV]

so what? it was like that before the ban ..it's no longer the murder captial of the US ..and that's only since the ban came into place

What are you talking about? It is the murder capital of the US, and by a considerable margin.

I'm tired of this debate ..it's completely circular and about as effective as pissing in the wind: gun advocates will defend their right despite any evidence that proves them wrong ..it's rather annoying as nothing is ever accomplished ..there is NO rational pro-gun voice ..it's all "bob and weave" style debating

What kind of ridiculous statement is "there is NO rational pro-gun voice"? Especially ironic of you to talk about bob and weave style debating when that is exactly what you are practicing. I showed you, in plain facts and figures, the gun crime epidemic in DC since the gun ban. The evidence here proves you completely and utterly wrong, you just ignore it.

 

[CptStern]

What are you talking about? It is the murder capital of the US, and by a considerable margin.

nope:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/01/city.murders.ap/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-02-city-murders_x.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260742,00.html

What kind of ridiculous statement is "there is NO rational pro-gun voice"? Especially ironic of you to talk about bob and weave style debating when that is exactly what you are practicing. I showed you, in plain facts and figures, the gun crime epidemic in DC since the gun ban. The evidence here proves you completely and utterly wrong, you just ignore it.

nope:

Since 1993, crime rates in Washington dropped consistently for over ten years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html

 

[repiV]

Yet according to one of your own links, the crime rate is higher now than it was in 1986 - and the gun ban has been around since the 1970s. Regression to the mean, anyone?

Chart

Incidentally, I just noticed that the DC gun ban was repealed in March.


DC crime stats since 1960

As you can plainly see, murder and violent crime skyrocketed in DC since the gun ban. It has come down a lot over the years, but it is still higher than it was before the gun ban, and the city remains far more dangerous than most places in America.
So how again is the gun ban saving lives?

 

[Solaris]

Yet according to one of your own links, the crime rate is higher now than it was in 1986 - and the gun ban has been around since the 1970s. Regression to the mean, anyone?

Chart

Incidentally, I just noticed that the DC gun ban was repealed in March.


DC crime stats since 1960

As you can plainly see, murder and violent crime skyrocketed in DC since the gun ban. It has come down a lot over the years, but it is still higher than it was before the gun ban, and the city remains far more dangerous than most places in America.
So how again is the gun ban saving lives?

Correlation does not imply cause.

 

[repiV]

Correlation does not imply cause.

Ok then, it's all a big coincidence.

I'll remember to use that argument the next time you claim that gun deaths in America are caused by the legality of guns.

 

[No Limit]

Personally, I think I've figured out the best way to get the right to remain in the US...

Forget doing anything like demonstrating to the relevant authorities the extent of my abilities, cultural fit and what I could bring to the country, that's just crazy talk. I should go and teach English in Mexico for a while, then sneak across the border. Assemble cardboard boxes for a few years and then get automatic citizenship...

Sure. You want to come over here and live like shit for 7 years while making $3 an hour come right over. I live in New Mexico, I'll be able to hook you up with a construction job right away. If hard construction is not your cup of tea we have plenty of other jobs out here nobody seems to want to do, like cleaning the toilets in our numerous businesses or doing landscaping which is a booming business here. Just let me know when you are coming over and I'll get you set up. You'll be off to great success with your $3 an hour, after all it is tax free so you will be making a whopping $360 a month if you work 60 hours a week (we can certainly make you work more).

 

[repiV]

Sure. You want to come over here and live like shit for 7 years while making $3 an hour come right over. I live in New Mexico, I'll be able to hook you up with a construction job right away. If hard construction is not your cup of tea we have plenty of other jobs out here nobody seems to want to do, like cleaning the toilets in our numerous businesses or doing landscaping which is a booming business here. Just let me know when you are coming over and I'll get you set up. You'll be off to great success with your $3 an hour, after all it is tax free so you will be making a whopping $360 a month if you work 60 hours a week (we can certainly make you work more).

So what?
The fact remains that US immigration policy discriminates against northern Europeans and talented individuals and professionals. It's next to impossible for a Brit to even get a work visa in the States, but then you see all this shit about amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants who never deserved to be there in the first place and in all likelihood can't even speak English.
The only way the situation could develop to this extent is if it were intentional. For some reason, evidently the Bush administration wants as many illegal immigrants as it can get and as few highly skilled migrants as possible.

 

[No Limit]

What's unfair about it?

I'm serious dude, I know quite a few people here in construction. If you got money for a plane ticket to Warez all you have to do is hop over the border, find a ride up to Albuquerque (about 300 miles north) and I'll hook you up with a job where you will make around $3 /hr depending on what you do. Just let me know when you are coming over.

Edit:

I recommend you come over with some relatives. $3 an hour is pretty shitty for one single person to live on. The more kids you got the better, we can put all of them to work.

 

[repiV]

What's unfair about it?

You don't see anything unfair in granting an amnesty for criminals who are in the country illegally, not paying any tax, straining the country's social services and completely undermining the lives of the working class you're supposed to care so deeply about, whilst many far more deserving people elsewhere are denied the opportunity to even work in the US on a temporary basis?

I'm serious dude, I know quite a few people here in construction. If you got money for a plane ticket to Warez all you have to do is hop over the border, find a ride up to Albuquerque (about 300 miles north) and I'll hook you up with a job where you will make around $3 /hr depending on what you do. Just let me know when you are coming over.

Edit:

I recommend you come over with some relatives. $3 an hour is pretty shitty for one single person to live on. The more kids you got the better, we can put all of them to work.

What are you trying to accomplish with your sarcy attempt at a sob story? You're just being childish.

 

[leib10]

What's unfair about it?

I'm serious dude, I know quite a few people here in construction. If you got money for a plane ticket to Warez all you have to do is hop over the border, find a ride up to Albuquerque (about 300 miles north) and I'll hook you up with a job where you will make around $3 /hr depending on what you do. Just let me know when you are coming over.

Edit:

I recommend you come over with some relatives. $3 an hour is pretty shitty for one single person to live on. The more kids you got the better, we can put all of them to work.

So basically, you enjoy exploiting this country to the advantage of foreign invaders to deny those natural-born citizens the rights they deserve?

 

[repiV]

So basically, you enjoy exploiting this country to the advantage of foreign invaders to deny those natural-born citizens the rights they deserve?

The thing I'm racking my brains over is how any self-professed bleeding heart could condone mass illegal immigration, which has a huge negative effect on the nation's poor and significantly benefits the rich.
Maybe it's because their views are driven by emotion instead of logic?

My suspicion is that the Bush administration wants to see the poor get poorer and the rich get richer so as to consolidate their powerbase. Hence effectively condoning illegal immigration en masse and keeping talented professionals out so there is less competition for the real wealth.