1/31/2013 4:03:19 PM

i still want to know the answer to this one

HOW DO YOU PROPOSE WE REDUCE THE CURRENT NUMBER OF GUNS IN CIRCULATION THUS IN TURN REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE?

1/31/2013 4:09:31 PM

All this arguing about real guns is pointless, VIRTUAL guns are the real problem:


http://kotaku.com/5980247/video-games-are-a-bigger-problem-than-guns-says-actual-us-senator


because "because video games affect people"

[Edited on January 31, 2013 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2013 4:11:54 PM

^ damn, that is almost as dumb as the women cant get preggers from rape dude

1/31/2013 4:46:21 PM

tl;dr version: Go eat a dick, man. I don't you get the concept behind reading message boards. You're boring. Clown shoes man, clown shoes.





Whoa... settle down, dick breath. Be patient. I didn't respond earlier, because typing on this:

with my thumbs is terribly inconvenient. I'm sure you understand. However, I'm home now, so here goes.


Maybe we can take this slow, so you can keep up. Deal?
First I do appreciate you giving me a "had" by posting things in chronological order. Fuck that, I'm above typos.


Let me start over. You actually did a great job in your last post quoting me, for the first time IN FULL, I might add.

EMCE said:

Quote :

"So as the NRA testifies in front of congress today, another story emerges about a high school student who played for the inauguration was recently gunned down in Chicago while seeking shelter from the rain. I suppose the NRA would contend that this 17 year old should have had a pistol to protect herself."

EMCE said:

Quote :

"So....a crime committed by a handgun that is most likely not legal to possess. Not arguing one way or another, but that kind of lends strength to the idea that reducing the number of guns anywhere would reduce the number of gun related crimes everywhere."

Shit begins to make a bit more sense when you don't cut my posts in half, doesn't it, you lousy chot?

But wait, you still fucking missed something. THIS is why I was telling you to go back and read the fucking thread. Quite obviously, when I said:

"So....a crime committed by a handgun that is most likely not legal to possess.

Not arguing one way or another, but that kind of lends strength to the idea that reducing the number of guns anywhere would reduce the number of gun related crimes everywhere."

I was responding to DeltaBeta's quip proclaiming:

Quote :

"^^ But handguns and most other guns are banned in Chicago. This is impossible."

How is it obvious, you might ask? Because I fucking quoted him before responding

So let's examine that.


Sparky said:

Quote :

"where did you say anything about legislation prior to this post? also who is making shit up? total dick move. "

DeltaBeta and I were talking about laws in Chicago, no? The laws banning the sale, possession, and use of firearms. Those laws are known collectively as legislation . Again, if you had actually read the fucking thread before riding in here with a dick caught in your throat, this wouldn't have been a difficult concept to pick up. I know... reading is quite a chore ON A FUCKING MESSAGE BOARD. Why oh why can't every post be a pretty, colorful picture?!

Who is making shit up? You are. You are making shit up by asking loaded, and fucking asinine questions, such as
sparky said:

Quote :

"do you think criminals are just going to give up their guns?"

Of course not. Of course I don't think that, sparky. That's why I didn't say such a thing. Instead, I mentioned gun bans limiting the sale, possession, and use a firearms lend strength to the idea that reducing the number of guns in circulation anywhere, can help reduce gun related crimes everywhere. How? By making them harder to acquire. Is this fullproof? No, of course not. But it helps. Hard to steal a gun to use in a crime, if it doesn't exist in the house that you rob, right? Harder to have a gun in your house or car that might be stolen if it's harder to acquire, no?

Which is of course, why I replied
EMCE said:

Quote :

"Never said that. Never even came close to saying that. You have to be intentionally obtuse to not realize fewer guns means fewer stolen guns (often used in crimes) Go kick rocks in flip flops, Thx."

Of course, you didn't say that I said that. You just insinuated that was the meaning of my post.... Either that, or you're just in the habit of asking stupid fucking questions for the hell of it. Hell, let me give that a try. By your post, did you mean to imply that you wash your dick off in your mother's mouth? I'm not saying that you do.... it's just a question bro.

sparky said:

Quote :

"You have to be intentionally obtuse to not realize that the market is already saturated with guns."

Derp? I never said guns aren't on the streets. I'm not sure where you got this from. I guess you just like arguing against points that literally no one has made.

sparky said:

Quote :

" The government will never be able to reduce the number of guns out there, but they may be able to slow down the number of illegal firearms available to criminals by stalling the number introduced into circulation. "

Wow, that part about reducing the number of guns available to criminals sounds familiar....

sparky said:

Quote :

"The fact is that there are already a shit ton of guns in America and it will be a cold day in hell before the government forces people to turn in there guns. So from that we can deduce that the number of guns in circulation will not be reduced, thus criminals will always have guns."

Re: Derp? Fantasy arguments? Moving on....


sparky said:

Quote :

"Dude fuck you! I've read what you said. I don't know of any other way to interpret what you said here..then that reducing the number of guns in circulation will reduce the number of gun related crimes. I do not disagree with you there. What I have simply asked is what do you propose to reduce the number of guns in circulation now. All you have suggested is legislation that limits who can purchase a gun and I'm telling you those laws are already in place. So what other ideas do you have?"

Awesome. I think we've already covered how your interpretation skills are flawed due to your inability to read the words in this thread. And sure, there are laws currently in place.... they're weak. Might I suggest more meaningful legislation to address this issue? If the laws currently in place do very little, then they need to be addressed and reformed. Perhaps state to state cooperation? Global databases? These are just a few ways that will eventually lead to fewer guns being in circulation.

1/31/2013 4:47:44 PM

I think Shady puts opinions like that into perspective pretty well

Quote :

"See I'm a poet to some, a regular modern day Shakespeare Jesus Christ the King of these Latter Day Saints here To shatter the picture in which of that as they paint me as a monger of hate and Satan a scatter-brained atheist But that ain't the case, see it's a matter of taste We as a people decide if Shady's as bad as they say he is Or is he the latter - a gateway to escape? Media scapegoat, who they can be mad at today"

1/31/2013 4:49:05 PM

basically the anti-gun arguement is

"i don't like them i don't want one i don't think anyone should have them because some people are irresponsible with them"

this argument can be applied to cars, cigarettes, booze, sex etc.

and if we legislate the shit of all those things too... i'll be wishing i had a gun to rid myself of this miserable existence.

1/31/2013 4:54:51 PM

I'm not even anti-gun...

1/31/2013 4:55:34 PM

Quote :

" this argument can be applied to cars, cigarettes, booze, sex etc."

we tried to ban booze once and it caused more problems than it solved. there is a lesson there

1/31/2013 5:08:31 PM

WE TRIED TO REGULATE AUTOMOBILES AND IT...

reduced auto-related deaths

1/31/2013 5:20:56 PM

^ we didnt go far enough!

we need BAC detectors on every car. plus a 25 mph national speed limit.

1/31/2013 5:30:18 PM

Think how many people would be saved if the government prohibited any automobile driver from exceeding 20 miles per hour. Thousands would be saved every year! 10s of thousands even! Would you support that?

1/31/2013 5:30:59 PM

^yeah, nobody "needs" a car that can go over 20mph. only law enforcement and the gubberment should have those

1/31/2013 6:17:48 PM

especially since no one in this country actually makes anything anymore.... we can all do our emails and send our plans and deliverables over email.

1/31/2013 6:54:16 PM

So what level of regulations is acceptable for cars?

and what for guns?

1/31/2013 7:03:09 PM

the guns/cars comparison is fucking stupid

there's not an amendment to the constitution that guarantees my right to drive

1/31/2013 7:22:50 PM

1/31/2013 7:26:01 PM

There have been several court cases since the advent of cars that have affirmed that the 5th amendment (amongst other legal protections) means driving is a right, not a privilege.

Your statement is idiotic because there werent cars when the constitution was written, and if there were, there very well may have been an amendment.

1/31/2013 7:28:36 PM

Speaking of literal gun control, is it just some common assumption that every angsty teen is an excellent marksman?

1/31/2013 8:20:34 PM

I assume that if there were cars in the 1780's, our forefathers would have the foresight to give us the right to drive 55+ anytime we please. It would have been the the 3rd amendment. There would be no such thing as speed limit signs.

i encourage you to watch this documentary by s. hagar, it really breaks it down, it's very relevant to the discussion:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x26lij_sammy-hagar-i-can-t-drive-55_music#.UQsqmGe3vy1

1/31/2013 9:41:17 PM

i don't like them i don't want one i don't think anyone should have them because some people are irresponsible with them

herp de derp

1/31/2013 9:56:49 PM

EMCE you are being a total shithead dick troll which is pretty fucked up because I thought we had a mutual respect for each other. But I guess not. From your very fist response to me you were derogatory and rude. I didn't expect you to act like such a fuck face. I'm not going to get sucked in to your trolling but I do want to clear the air about one thing. Our conversation is completely separate form the one you and DeltaBeta were having. I asked you some simple questions to get and idea of your thoughts and you respond by being a total ass. Seriously...what the fuck did I ever do to you to deserve such a response with that attitude. I was completely shocked by your response. I had viewed you as a quality poster and a pretty cool guy until yesterday. Funny thing...after all that ranting and bitching you still haven't provided a response to my question...obvious trolling. Go suck a dick!

2/1/2013 8:06:26 AM

Yeah, whatever man. Like I give a fuck how you feel about me. Your answer is there, but as we established, you have reading problems. Go drink bleach, grundle lips

2/1/2013 8:49:25 AM

Quote :

"VERY FIST RESPONSE"

2/1/2013 8:50:19 AM

^^ your answer is legislation....ok go it....dumb fuck

2/1/2013 8:51:30 AM

2/1/2013 8:53:47 AM

EMCE, could you please be more kind to sparky? you're killing my vibe.

2/1/2013 9:17:59 AM

omg

2/1/2013 9:31:52 AM

frisbee

2/1/2013 9:33:35 AM

Quote :

"the guns/cars comparison is fucking stupid"

I agree. E=(1/2)mv² shows that driving a car is way more dangerous, stats would too I guess.

Quote :

"Think how many people would be saved if the government prohibited any automobile driver from exceeding 20 miles per hour. Thousands would be saved every year! 10s of thousands even! Would you support that?"

If it could save even 1 child, don't we have the obligation to try?

2/1/2013 9:59:39 AM

Reducing the speed limit in the United States is a common sense law. Think of the children!

2/1/2013 10:38:05 AM

man i'm glad i live in Texas. Awesome guns laws and 85 mph speed limit.....FUCK YEAH!!

2/1/2013 10:50:10 AM

2/1/2013 10:53:01 AM

^ DUDE WHERE DID YOU GET MY PICTURE? THAT SHIT IS SET TO PRIVATE ON MY FACEBOOK!

2/1/2013 11:30:03 AM

I'm surprised how upset people got in this thread!

But seriously, there's no chance of change on the federal level. Why would anyone delude themselves into thinking there is? I mean, we're talking about things that would have to pass congress. congress.

Assault weapons aren't going to get banned and you're an idiot for thinking they might.

2/1/2013 12:10:04 PM

that's exactly what all the gun owners thought in 1994 as well

2/1/2013 12:20:16 PM

2/1/2013 3:13:11 PM

Quote :

"that's exactly what all the gun owners thought in 1994 as well"

the democrats lost the house again in 96 too

2/1/2013 3:35:02 PM

Mr Colion Noir makes a lot of you look dumb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4n8egXfmJM&t=0m8s

2/1/2013 4:20:20 PM

^^yep, and we had count how many evil features our rifles had for 10 years

2/1/2013 4:26:07 PM

I had a rifle with a pistol grip AND a barrel shroud that goes up over your shoulder.

2/1/2013 6:17:02 PM

2/1/2013 7:41:23 PM

interesting graph, but where's the data points for 2012?

2/1/2013 8:38:11 PM

Interesting point. It's saying that we've blamed mentally disabled people, and we have no basis for doing that.

Still, it seems like almost all of the shooters you hear about in the news are crazy. I guess they're not mentally "disabled". Just crazy. We don't treat crazy. We just treat disabled.

2/2/2013 5:07:41 PM

you don't have to have a chemical imbalance or an extra chromosome to be a complete wacko who shouldn't have a gun

[Edited on February 2, 2013 at 8:30 PM. Reason : adsf]

2/2/2013 8:30:30 PM

^^ That dude is full of shit, you dont kill innocent people unless you are mentally ill.

2/2/2013 10:15:20 PM

I want to get a gun and sign it with my dick

2/3/2013 12:24:27 AM

Graph is biased as fuck. How long has hollywood/entertainment been making violent films? certainly since before 1980. Westerns had their hay day in the 50-60s. I bet if they stretched the graph from 1910 to present you would see a pretty pronounced spike. But, that's just my hypothesis.

2/3/2013 2:08:44 AM

Between My Father, Mother, brother, Wife, brother-in-law and myself, we have probably fired over 400,000 rounds in our lives (that's a rather conservative estimate). None of which were involved in a crime. If you look at it from a shots fired legally vs. shots fired in a crime. The ratio would quickly become so unbelievable that I don't feel like wearing out the zero key to show the probability of a round being used in a crime. But that isn't enough to show anti-gunners that nearly every LEGAL gun owner is very responsible. I love liberal logic...

A MAN shot someone with a gun. QUICK, OUTLAW Guns.

Hundreds of people die everyday fighting over drug money. Well if we legalize marijuana that wouldn't happen anymore.

How is this type of logic running our country???

2/3/2013 6:58:14 AM

Quote :

"This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House."

plz to photoshop this

2/3/2013 10:39:25 AM