After the Sandy Hook Shooting incident...
0
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Steven H. wrote...
I blame bullets, you can't shoot people without bullets.Crossbows, slingshots, and Rpg's disagree.
If you kill multiple people with a slingshot good on you!
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
Lollikittie wrote...
and for some stupid reason [the anchor themselves were appalled] actually trained him to use and fire guns, and gave him access to her weaponry. The anchor theorized that the mental instability in conjunction with the sudden exposure to real-life gun violence, triggered a switch in his behavior.So it's horrible for parents to teach kids how to properly use a gun?
0
cruz737 wrote...
Lollikittie wrote...
and for some stupid reason [the anchor themselves were appalled] actually trained him to use and fire guns, and gave him access to her weaponry. The anchor theorized that the mental instability in conjunction with the sudden exposure to real-life gun violence, triggered a switch in his behavior.So it's horrible for parents to teach kids how to properly use a gun?
Yes. Guns are bad mmmmkay!
0
Lollikittie wrote...
I didn't hear anything on the news about video games, the coverage was actually extremely rational and levelheaded - history of social isolation, mental/behavioral disorders, mother relocated several times, and for some stupid reason [the anchor themselves were appalled] actually trained him to use and fire guns, and gave him access to her weaponry. The anchor theorized that the mental instability in conjunction with the sudden exposure to real-life gun violence, triggered a switch in his behavior.Rational and level headed.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinion/bergen-guns-national-security/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinion/haas-mass-shootings/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
Please don't hate me, I love your stories.
0
animefreak_usa
Child of Samael
cruz737 wrote...
Lollikittie wrote...
and for some stupid reason [the anchor themselves were appalled] actually trained him to use and fire guns, and gave him access to her weaponry. The anchor theorized that the mental instability in conjunction with the sudden exposure to real-life gun violence, triggered a switch in his behavior.So it's horrible for parents to teach kids how to properly use a gun?
Do you agree with her fault for not locking the guns and ammo in a safe or gun locker?
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
animefreak_usa wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
Lollikittie wrote...
and for some stupid reason [the anchor themselves were appalled] actually trained him to use and fire guns, and gave him access to her weaponry. The anchor theorized that the mental instability in conjunction with the sudden exposure to real-life gun violence, triggered a switch in his behavior.So it's horrible for parents to teach kids how to properly use a gun?
Do you agree with her fault for not locking the guns and ammo in a safe or gun locker?
There's plenty of blame to go around for everyone.
0
total bs, there was a thing on my news about how his mom had taught him how to use the guns and was "proud that her son could use guns safely"
0
In my opinion, the allowance of private gun ownership is to blame.
And before anyone starts:
"The Second Amendment clearly states that one has the right to bear arms."
That was passed in 1791. As far as I am concerned, it is no longer necessary.
"Ah need ta keep a gun under muh pillers to stop dem crim'nals!"
No you don't. If you live in an area where you honestly fear homicide, MOVE.
"But criminals will still own guns, so civilians should be able to have them.
By that logic, we all should have explosives, so we can all protect ourselves from criminals who have explosives.
But it was done on accident with carmel in nevadduh by Mary.
And before anyone starts:
"The Second Amendment clearly states that one has the right to bear arms."
That was passed in 1791. As far as I am concerned, it is no longer necessary.
"Ah need ta keep a gun under muh pillers to stop dem crim'nals!"
No you don't. If you live in an area where you honestly fear homicide, MOVE.
"But criminals will still own guns, so civilians should be able to have them.
By that logic, we all should have explosives, so we can all protect ourselves from criminals who have explosives.
But it was done on accident with carmel in nevadduh by Mary.
0
NEXUS
Since 2010
opanihuya wrote...
Hmm, why don't I hear anyone going around blaming antidepressants? Every time I hear about a killing spree on tv the person appears to be a heavy user. At least that would sound more realistic than vidia games.I don't know about that, I've been on anti-depressants for years (for anxiety not depression) and I've never felt any strong will to go out and kill a bunch of people. You have to take mental health in general into account. Not put the blame on video games, tv and movies but on the person's state of mind as a whole. Crazy people do crazy things, sane people think rationally and are less likely to do something crazy (although there are probably some exceptions.)
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
Mash Karas wrote...
"The Second Amendment clearly states that one has the right to bear arms."
That was passed in 1791. As far as I am concerned, it is no longer necessary.
"Ah need ta keep a gun under muh pillers to stop dem crim'nals!"
No you don't. If you live in an area where you honestly fear homicide, MOVE.
"But criminals will still own guns, so civilians should be able to have them.
By that logic, we all should have explosives, so we can all protect ourselves from criminals who have explosives.
But it was done on accident with carmel in nevadduh by Mary.
How are they no longer necessary?
As for the whole "under the pillow" schtick, most gun owners know that's irresponsible. If you live in an area where you honestly fear homicide you should have the ability to defend yourself.
And yes, criminals will still have guns. Comparing guns to explosives is really retarded though. If you have a point, say it, don't make stupid comparisons.
0
Honestly, stricter gun laws are NEVER going to pass, and to me, the only thing worse that happens after these shootings is the fact that politicians and gun control advocates use those victims as a platform to try to get more strict gun laws passed. Shouldn't we be enforcing the laws we already have before we even think of passing laws that aren't going to be enforced 100% like most other laws?
Sorry, but guns aren't the problem. Guns are just tools, like a hammer, knife, sword, etc. Yeah, those are tools that can kill, but if people want guns banned because of the deaths they cause, then they really need to advocate for the banning of cars due to the number of automobile deaths per year. What about planes? Remember what crashed into those two buildings on 9/11? Certaintly wasn't an M60 flying into one and a BAR flying into another.
I'd still keep an eye on things till the year finishes at least. Something tells me we're going to be riding down a slippery slope and those that pushed us down are gonna regret it when it's too late. :/
Sorry, but guns aren't the problem. Guns are just tools, like a hammer, knife, sword, etc. Yeah, those are tools that can kill, but if people want guns banned because of the deaths they cause, then they really need to advocate for the banning of cars due to the number of automobile deaths per year. What about planes? Remember what crashed into those two buildings on 9/11? Certaintly wasn't an M60 flying into one and a BAR flying into another.
I'd still keep an eye on things till the year finishes at least. Something tells me we're going to be riding down a slippery slope and those that pushed us down are gonna regret it when it's too late. :/
0
cruz737 wrote...
Lollikittie wrote...
and for some stupid reason [the anchor themselves were appalled] actually trained him to use and fire guns, and gave him access to her weaponry. The anchor theorized that the mental instability in conjunction with the sudden exposure to real-life gun violence, triggered a switch in his behavior.So it's horrible for parents to teach kids how to properly use a gun?
Would you teach a mentally unstable, socially isolated child how to use a gun?
You're better than that, Cruz. Come on.
animefreak_usa wrote...
Do you agree with her fault for not locking the guns and ammo in a safe or gun locker? This child had a known history of mental instability and behavioral issues, she had had to relocate more than once for issues relating to these problems. She taught him how to use a gun and essentially gave him free reign with her weaponry... so, yeah. If nothing else, mind-boggling stupidity on her part directly led to the deaths of those children. She knew her kid was messed up, but she handed him a gun.
0
Same old shit. Morons try to censor video games, smart people fight back, Anonymous somehow gets involved cause they have no lives, nothing important happens in the end.
0
NEXUS wrote...
opanihuya wrote...
Hmm, why don't I hear anyone going around blaming antidepressants? Every time I hear about a killing spree on tv the person appears to be a heavy user. At least that would sound more realistic than vidia games.I don't know about that, I've been on anti-depressants for years (for anxiety not depression) and I've never felt any strong will to go out and kill a bunch of people. You have to take mental health in general into account. Not put the blame on video games, tv and movies but on the person's state of mind as a whole. Crazy people do crazy things, sane people think rationally and are less likely to do something crazy (although there are probably some exceptions.)
Then I'm all out of scapegoats. I agree with you on taking overall mental development into accounts, which no one will bother to because it's a lot more simple to think in the flatout crazy-not crazy division terms you mention afterwards (but that's also hardly the right answer).
In other words - I don't know jack shit.
0
NEXUS wrote...
opanihuya wrote...
Hmm, why don't I hear anyone going around blaming antidepressants? Every time I hear about a killing spree on tv the person appears to be a heavy user. At least that would sound more realistic than vidia games.I don't know about that, I've been on anti-depressants for years (for anxiety not depression) and I've never felt any strong will to go out and kill a bunch of people. You have to take mental health in general into account. Not put the blame on video games, tv and movies but on the person's state of mind as a whole. Crazy people do crazy things, sane people think rationally and are less likely to do something crazy (although there are probably some exceptions.)
Anti depressants are known to have a higher chance to cause suicidal thoughts in younger males/females and may cause your condition or issue to become worse depending on the severity of your condition. They can also be very addictive. Everyone has the ability to think or behave rational or irrational and everyone's definition of crazy or sane is not the same.
0
Mash Karas wrote...
In my opinion, the allowance of private gun ownership is to blame.And before anyone starts:
"The Second Amendment clearly states that one has the right to bear arms."
That was passed in 1791. As far as I am concerned, it is no longer necessary.
"Ah need ta keep a gun under muh pillers to stop dem crim'nals!"
No you don't. If you live in an area where you honestly fear homicide, MOVE.
"But criminals will still own guns, so civilians should be able to have them.
By that logic, we all should have explosives, so we can all protect ourselves from criminals who have explosives.
But it was done on accident with carmel in nevadduh by Mary.
Its the guns fault?
Every morning on my way to work i see the kids going to school gather at the street corner to catch the bus.
I could run the whole lot of them over with my truck.
Is it the trucks fault i killed those kids?
Guns and cars are merely tools a person uses.
Guns and the personal rights that are included with them are absolutely necessary.
My guns are locked up tight within easy reach in case of emergency, if they are out that means their in pieces on the bench being worked on in which case i lock up a few vital parts so the gun cannot be reassembled.
Granted there are some bad gun owners, but then again there are bad drivers too.
But your lucky, not everyone has the option to just "MOVE" when they don't live in their ideal crime free fantasyland, and that's where above rights prove their necessity.
Yea criminals will always have guns, but like Cruz said your comparison was really awful.
If you and compare the rate of crime in states that allow open/conceal carry as opposed to those that don't, the answer should be easy.
I believe every state should be able to carry, give the citizens the means to protect themselves.
0
Remember that shooting wherein they said the shooter must love playing violent games, yet the only game he likes is MegaMan?
0
cruz737 wrote...
Mash Karas wrote...
"The Second Amendment clearly states that one has the right to bear arms."
That was passed in 1791. As far as I am concerned, it is no longer necessary.
"Ah need ta keep a gun under muh pillers to stop dem crim'nals!"
No you don't. If you live in an area where you honestly fear homicide, MOVE.
"But criminals will still own guns, so civilians should be able to have them.
By that logic, we all should have explosives, so we can all protect ourselves from criminals who have explosives.
But it was done on accident with carmel in nevadduh by Mary.
How are they no longer necessary?
As for the whole "under the pillow" schtick, most gun owners know that's irresponsible. If you live in an area where you honestly fear homicide you should have the ability to defend yourself.
And yes, criminals will still have guns. Comparing guns to explosives is really retarded though. If you have a point, say it, don't make stupid comparisons.
Ah, but you said it yourself; responsible is not a adjective I would apply to most people. If a responsible gun owner wants a gun, they may have it. But that isn't most people.
And I don't see the comparison of guns to explosives to be that radical. If you see some great difference between them, please enlighten me as to what it is.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
Mash Karas wrote...
Ah, but you said it yourself; responsible is not a adjective I would apply to most people. If a responsible gun owner wants a gun, they may have it. But that isn't most people.
So if I one person used a blunt instrument to commit murder we should ban all instruments because there's a couple people out there who aren't responsible with blunt instruments.
