Limelight Forums

(Jun 15, 2016, 06:51 PM)BlackDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 15, 2016, 06:44 PM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ]In my eyes, gun control is what will cause more of  these shootings. To stop bad guys with guns, we must give good guys guns, too, right? I am strongly against gun control. If guns were taken form the American public, it would be not only unconstitutional, but absolutely stupid. When britain banned firearms, violent crime shot up. Just because guns are gone doesn't mean people will stop hurting each other. A gun doesn't pull it's own trigger. Furthermore, one of the reasons America is free is because of guns. If anyone tried to invade, there would be millions of gun owners ready to defend the homeland. Just this fact, not the fact that America's military is strong, means that we can stay free.

One thing I do hate, though, are people who are European and don't have the full rights to guns that criticize America because we do have them. They have helped us and hurt us, but without them, we wouldn't be free

If a normal looking citizen of america walks into an area and begins to shoot the place up, and other normal looking citizens of america begin to pull guns throughout the area, how many people will be killed other than the original shooter because no one is sure who else is involved?

That guy has a gun, but this guy has a gun, i was on the 2nd floor and came down with my gun, and i see two people with guns who are standing near a body, I cant take the risk of them shooting me, so i will shoot them.

To me it just seems like everyone having a gun would just turn a mass shooting situation into an even bigger cluster fuck, since everyone will be shooting everyone, because not everyone will know who the original shooter was.

OT:
It's common sense. It's time for control.

(Jun 15, 2016, 06:51 PM)BlackDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 15, 2016, 06:44 PM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ]In my eyes, gun control is what will cause more of  these shootings. To stop bad guys with guns, we must give good guys guns, too, right? I am strongly against gun control. If guns were taken form the American public, it would be not only unconstitutional, but absolutely stupid. When britain banned firearms, violent crime shot up. Just because guns are gone doesn't mean people will stop hurting each other. A gun doesn't pull it's own trigger. Furthermore, one of the reasons America is free is because of guns. If anyone tried to invade, there would be millions of gun owners ready to defend the homeland. Just this fact, not the fact that America's military is strong, means that we can stay free.

One thing I do hate, though, are people who are European and don't have the full rights to guns that criticize America because we do have them. They have helped us and hurt us, but without them, we wouldn't be free

If a normal looking citizen of america walks into an area and begins to shoot the place up, and other normal looking citizens of america begin to pull guns throughout the area, how many people will be killed other than the original shooter because no one is sure who else is involved?

That guy has a gun, but this guy has a gun, i was on the 2nd floor and came down with my gun, and i see two people with guns who are standing near a body, I cant take the risk of them shooting me, so i will shoot them.

To me it just seems like everyone having a gun would just turn a mass shooting situation into an even bigger cluster fuck, since everyone will be shooting everyone, because not everyone will know who the original shooter was.

Generally whichever lunatic is the one standing and waving a gun around is the culprit, and not the people running away or taking cover and drawing a concealed firearm which, in my state, they have to qualify with in order to carry.
Another common practice for carry permits in some places is a psych evaluation from a licensed professional in order to receive a carry permit.

(Jun 15, 2016, 08:15 PM)Toxic Wrote: [ -> ]Generally whichever lunatic is the one standing and waving a gun around is the culprit, and not the people running away or taking cover and drawing a concealed firearm which, in my state, they have to qualify with in order to carry.
Another common practice for carry permits in some places is a psych evaluation from a licensed professional in order to receive a carry permit.

Not all shooters will just be standing around being crazy, and will look exactly like anyone else nearby who has a gun.

This becomes more of an issue as the situation becomes more drawn out.

Psych evaluations only do so much, as people can just go nuts, most mass shootings in america seem to be someone loseing their mind and just going on a shooting spree with legaly obtained weapons

I literally just used my gun to kill a skunk that attacked my dogs.

Guns don't always kill people. They are used for defense as well. If I were somewhere else without gun laws in this situation it may have ended worse.

(Jun 15, 2016, 07:11 PM)Safira Wrote: [ -> ]If guns don't kill people, people kill people, does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toasts toast?

(Just a joke)

To me, I feel like there's a large issue in the CONTROL of guns. Because it seems like so many unstable or unsuitable people can get their hands on a gun easily. I'm not sure what to google to provide statistics, but for example: Sandy Hook shooter - deemed Unstable.
The teenager who shot his mother and sister after watching a movie - deemed unstable.

In my opinion, there's hella gun crime because the opportunity presents itself to so many citizens.
I've always likened it to car thieves (bear with me).

You see an unlocked car, and so it's almost inviting you to steal it.
You see a locked car. It takes a lot more effort to break in, Hotwire it and get away - not worth the effort.

Think about guns as a car. If the car is locked (eg Guns are harder to obtain), it's much more likely that there will be less gun crime simply because there's a much smaller window of opportunity for the average citizen to resort to gun violence.
Look at Australia: they're a good example of a viable outcome if gun restrictions are tightened - I'm not saying remove them, but they shouldn't be so easy to obtain.

People talk about thieves who enter homes with guns and the need to protect their family/property - that thief got his gun legally. Most thieves are opportunists (it's not a career). Obtaining a gun - illegally - would be far more of a hassle than nicking someone's MacBook is worth.

There's a vicious cycle whereby guns are needed to protect yourself from guns which are needed to protect yourself from guns, to a point where everybody - including the thief- needs to carry a gun in self defence.

I'm on mobile so I can't go grab a bunch of sources, but if you did research into Sandy Hook, the shooter didn't purchase the weapon legally. His mother did. He stole it from her house, killed her, and then went to the school. The thing that could have prevented that is responsible gun ownership. Having it locked away and hidden, especially if you know your kid is crazy. The fact also comes up of banning rifles and shotguns still, however if you look at my post in the other thread, over 70% of gun crime involves a handgun. 

There is no perfect solution to this. Most people look at one extreme, banning all weapons, or another extreme, giving everyone guns. The happy medium would be going through more rigorous background checks, making sure that the people purchasing the gun have safe storage places, and things like that. More guns doesn't equal less crime and less guns doesn't equal more crime. Because frankly, we don't know. We have always been able to own guns and we just don't know the outdone of either.

(Jun 15, 2016, 08:48 PM)Venom Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 15, 2016, 07:11 PM)Safira Wrote: [ -> ]If guns don't kill people, people kill people, does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toasts toast?

(Just a joke)

To me, I feel like there's a large issue in the CONTROL of guns. Because it seems like so many unstable or unsuitable people can get their hands on a gun easily. I'm not sure what to google to provide statistics, but for example: Sandy Hook shooter - deemed Unstable.
The teenager who shot his mother and sister after watching a movie - deemed unstable.

In my opinion, there's hella gun crime because the opportunity presents itself to so many citizens.
I've always likened it to car thieves (bear with me).

You see an unlocked car, and so it's almost inviting you to steal it.
You see a locked car. It takes a lot more effort to break in, Hotwire it and get away - not worth the effort.

Think about guns as a car. If the car is locked (eg Guns are harder to obtain), it's much more likely that there will be less gun crime simply because there's a much smaller window of opportunity for the average citizen to resort to gun violence.
Look at Australia: they're a good example of a viable outcome if gun restrictions are tightened - I'm not saying remove them, but they shouldn't be so easy to obtain.

People talk about thieves who enter homes with guns and the need to protect their family/property - that thief got his gun legally. Most thieves are opportunists (it's not a career). Obtaining a gun - illegally - would be far more of a hassle than nicking someone's MacBook is worth.

There's a vicious cycle whereby guns are needed to protect yourself from guns which are needed to protect yourself from guns, to a point where everybody - including the thief- needs to carry a gun in self defence.

I'm on mobile so I can't go grab a bunch of sources, but if you did research into Sandy Hook, the shooter didn't purchase the weapon legally. His mother did. He stole it from her house, killed her, and then went to the school. The thing that could have prevented that is responsible gun ownership. Having it locked away and hidden, especially if you know your kid is crazy. The fact also comes up of banning rifles and shotguns still, however if you look at my post in the other thread, over 70% of gun crime involves a handgun. 

There is no perfect solution to this. Most people look at one extreme, banning all weapons, or another extreme, giving everyone guns. The happy medium would be going through more rigorous background checks, making sure that the people purchasing the gun have safe storage places, and things like that. More guns doesn't equal less crime and less guns doesn't equal more crime. Because frankly, we don't know. We have always been able to own guns and we just don't know the outdone of either.

While it is true that the majority of shootings involve a handgun, but I bet the majority (if not all) mass shootings involve an assault rifle.

(Jun 15, 2016, 09:09 PM)George Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 15, 2016, 08:48 PM)Venom Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 15, 2016, 07:11 PM)Safira Wrote: [ -> ]If guns don't kill people, people kill people, does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toasts toast?

(Just a joke)

To me, I feel like there's a large issue in the CONTROL of guns. Because it seems like so many unstable or unsuitable people can get their hands on a gun easily. I'm not sure what to google to provide statistics, but for example: Sandy Hook shooter - deemed Unstable.
The teenager who shot his mother and sister after watching a movie - deemed unstable.

In my opinion, there's hella gun crime because the opportunity presents itself to so many citizens.
I've always likened it to car thieves (bear with me).

You see an unlocked car, and so it's almost inviting you to steal it.
You see a locked car. It takes a lot more effort to break in, Hotwire it and get away - not worth the effort.

Think about guns as a car. If the car is locked (eg Guns are harder to obtain), it's much more likely that there will be less gun crime simply because there's a much smaller window of opportunity for the average citizen to resort to gun violence.
Look at Australia: they're a good example of a viable outcome if gun restrictions are tightened - I'm not saying remove them, but they shouldn't be so easy to obtain.

People talk about thieves who enter homes with guns and the need to protect their family/property - that thief got his gun legally. Most thieves are opportunists (it's not a career). Obtaining a gun - illegally - would be far more of a hassle than nicking someone's MacBook is worth.

There's a vicious cycle whereby guns are needed to protect yourself from guns which are needed to protect yourself from guns, to a point where everybody - including the thief- needs to carry a gun in self defence.

I'm on mobile so I can't go grab a bunch of sources, but if you did research into Sandy Hook, the shooter didn't purchase the weapon legally. His mother did. He stole it from her house, killed her, and then went to the school. The thing that could have prevented that is responsible gun ownership. Having it locked away and hidden, especially if you know your kid is crazy. The fact also comes up of banning rifles and shotguns still, however if you look at my post in the other thread, over 70% of gun crime involves a handgun. 

There is no perfect solution to this. Most people look at one extreme, banning all weapons, or another extreme, giving everyone guns. The happy medium would be going through more rigorous background checks, making sure that the people purchasing the gun have safe storage places, and things like that. More guns doesn't equal less crime and less guns doesn't equal more crime. Because frankly, we don't know. We have always been able to own guns and we just don't know the outdone of either.

While it is true that the majority of shootings involve a handgun, but I bet the majority (if not all) mass shootings involve an assault rifle.

It is true that many involve rifles, however the deadliest shooting in the US, before Orlando, involved only handguns. Most shooters typically have a handgun with them aswell. The officer that was shot in the head in Orlando was shot by a handgun, so he definetly utilized it. Many other mass shootings involve only handguns too.

France has strict gun laws but that didn't stop then from mass murdering over 100 people. All of the main guns used in France were illegal.

Just because you say they're illegal doesn't make them fucking hard to obtain. Hit em where it hurts. Don't hit the law abiding citizen who is punished enough as it is.

Come to /r/the_Donald and wake up. We actively being censored because the truth was blasted on /r/all on every single post.

I got a FUCKING plan you guys
ARE YOU READY FOR THIS?
we trick everyone
we switch everyones guns out with meme cannons
whenever they want to spread hate they just spread memes
the fuckjing faggots shooting up stuff will feel silly when they spread joy through a pepe.
MEME CANNOSN FOR ALL

Keep things on topic

we need moar gunz to dufend oursulf!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just said to keep things on topic, the next offtopic post in such a fashion will warrant a warning or further sanctions.

I am on topic, I'm quoting the average American who is "protecting meh 2nd amendment"
There's a serious gun problem and it's not going to magically fix itself. Now I know its REALLY hard but you're going to have to sacrifice your "2nd amendment"

(Jun 15, 2016, 09:09 PM)George Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 15, 2016, 08:48 PM)Venom Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 15, 2016, 07:11 PM)Safira Wrote: [ -> ]If guns don't kill people, people kill people, does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toasts toast?

(Just a joke)

To me, I feel like there's a large issue in the CONTROL of guns. Because it seems like so many unstable or unsuitable people can get their hands on a gun easily. I'm not sure what to google to provide statistics, but for example: Sandy Hook shooter - deemed Unstable.
The teenager who shot his mother and sister after watching a movie - deemed unstable.

In my opinion, there's hella gun crime because the opportunity presents itself to so many citizens.
I've always likened it to car thieves (bear with me).

You see an unlocked car, and so it's almost inviting you to steal it.
You see a locked car. It takes a lot more effort to break in, Hotwire it and get away - not worth the effort.

Think about guns as a car. If the car is locked (eg Guns are harder to obtain), it's much more likely that there will be less gun crime simply because there's a much smaller window of opportunity for the average citizen to resort to gun violence.
Look at Australia: they're a good example of a viable outcome if gun restrictions are tightened - I'm not saying remove them, but they shouldn't be so easy to obtain.

People talk about thieves who enter homes with guns and the need to protect their family/property - that thief got his gun legally. Most thieves are opportunists (it's not a career). Obtaining a gun - illegally - would be far more of a hassle than nicking someone's MacBook is worth.

There's a vicious cycle whereby guns are needed to protect yourself from guns which are needed to protect yourself from guns, to a point where everybody - including the thief- needs to carry a gun in self defence.

I'm on mobile so I can't go grab a bunch of sources, but if you did research into Sandy Hook, the shooter didn't purchase the weapon legally. His mother did. He stole it from her house, killed her, and then went to the school. The thing that could have prevented that is responsible gun ownership. Having it locked away and hidden, especially if you know your kid is crazy. The fact also comes up of banning rifles and shotguns still, however if you look at my post in the other thread, over 70% of gun crime involves a handgun. 

There is no perfect solution to this. Most people look at one extreme, banning all weapons, or another extreme, giving everyone guns. The happy medium would be going through more rigorous background checks, making sure that the people purchasing the gun have safe storage places, and things like that. More guns doesn't equal less crime and less guns doesn't equal more crime. Because frankly, we don't know. We have always been able to own guns and we just don't know the outdone of either.

While it is true that the majority of shootings involve a handgun, but I bet the majority (if not all) mass shootings involve an assault rifle.

Power to you if you manage to buy an assault rifle in this country. Transfer of assault rifles to private citizens has been outlawed since 1986. The only way to get them now is if you're part of a trust, are in possession of a FFL and can receive Title 2 weapons(note, these exceptions are for pre 86 firearns), or are Law Enforcement, which ramps the price up. A pre-ban M16 will cost you $35,000 USD once you completed your year long background check, gg NFA.  You're referring to semi-automatic firearms with militaristic (tacticool) features which our media endearingly refer to as "assault weapons." Trying to help you out for the sake of accuracy.