• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

The one and only big fat thread about GUNS.

Captain Gizmo

Monkey King
4,843
Posts
11
Years
LilJz1234 hate to break this to you, but...

The United States murder rate has dropped more than 50% since 1992. It seems to be getting there, with or without increased gun control.

I've yet to determine the cause, however, so make of it what you will.

Okay, let's say guns were COMPLETELY banned from USA. Murder rates will still be the same? I don't think so, Even if people starts killing with knives, you got a way higher chance to defend yourself than against someone with a gun. So gun control will surely not stop crime, but greatly reduce the number of civilians killed by guns.
 

Atomic Pirate

I always win.
930
Posts
12
Years
And the cops aren't doing anything about this psycho? I say, in all honesty, throw him in a mental asylum, as he is obviously not well in the head. And if gun activists are this insane, then there should most definitely be higher limitations on firearms. If they actually think that killing people will convince the government to support guns, then they are genuinely crazy and need to be locked up in solitary confinement.

You see, giving a gun to someone who already has violent tendencies, like these wackos, is a bad idea no matter how you spin it. I'm fine with allowing things like hunting rifles to be sold to people, but there needs to be a solid and strict background check in place to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...g-people-gun-permit_n_2459456.html?1358258317

James Yeager, the CEO who recently threatened to "start killing people" if President Barack Obama pursued an expansion on gun control, has had his gun permit suspended.

Authorities with the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security told Newschannel 5 the suspension was based on "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public."

In a statement to the station, Commissioner Bill Gibbons said:
The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public's safety. Mr. Yeager's comments were irresponsible, dangerous, and deserved our immediate attention. Due to our concern, as well as that of law enforcement, his handgun permit was suspended immediately. We have notified Mr. Yeager about the suspension today via e-mail. He will receive an official notification of his suspension through the mail.

Yeager raised some eyebrows after posting a video to YouTube Wednesday. In the clip he said increased gun control measures would "spark a civil war" and he would "be glad to fire the first shot."

The video originally ended with Yeager stating, "If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people." He has since deleted that portion of the video, but an original version, captured by Raw Story, is still viewable below.

Yeager is the CEO of Tactical Response, a Tennessee company that teaches people weapons handling and other tactical skills.

In a video statement released on YouTube Thursday, Yeager acknowledges, "I was mad when I said it and probably allowed my mouth to overrun my logic, but I don't retract any of my statements."

Well... at least he has balls enough to stand by on his claim that he will start murdering people.
 

Ayutac

Developer who wants your help
157
Posts
12
Years
Honestly, I almost exspected the police to do nothing (since he has money and lives in America), but I'm really REALLY glad my prejudice didn't come true this time.

This civil war raging reminds me after the civil war raging after Obama's reelection. If it wouldn't involve killing people I would like to see these guys struggling against the army as the guns are taken away (of course after they shot various police officers who where just doing their job).

Well, but we are far off this scenario.

As for Yeager, good for him to acknowledge being a revolutionist in the name of own safety by killing others. See, these guys are the reasons I would just feel unsafe in America and thus never ever visit it.
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
What a jerk. He makes the rest of us look bad. That said, threatening to use executive order to circumvent congress is authoritarian and dictatorial. But nobody's threatening to take away guns from current gun owners, as far as I know.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Interesting thought, but could the lack or removal of gun control be unconstitutional? After all, the amendment says "Well Regulated". And what is gun control? Regulation.

However, shall not be infringed. Regulations pertaining to who can and can not own weapons, primarily the federal laws that prohibit convicted felons such as murders and rapists, is against this.

The amendment requires us to have gun control, a form of regulation. But it also says that the rights shall not be infringed. Any form of regulation is, basically, the limitation of something because of, or due to, certian circumstances. In this case, regulation is limitation of the 2nd amendment. Which is, by the amendment, not allowed.

Ironic isn't it? The 2nd amendment both requires and forbids regulation.
 

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu
9,528
Posts
11
Years
Interesting thought, but could the lack or removal of gun control be unconstitutional? After all, the amendment says "Well Regulated". And what is gun control? Regulation.

However, shall not be infringed. Regulations pertaining to who can and can not own weapons, primarily the federal laws that prohibit convicted felons such as murders and rapists, is against this.

The amendment requires us to have gun control, a form of regulation. But it also says that the rights shall not be infringed. Any form of regulation is, basically, the limitation of something because of, or due to, certian circumstances. In this case, regulation is limitation of the 2nd amendment. Which is, by the amendment, not allowed.

Ironic isn't it? The 2nd amendment both requires and forbids regulation.

Couldn't they perhaps create another amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment like they did with the 18th amendment?
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Theoretically, because of the "shall not be infringed' tacked to the end of it... no. It can't be repealed and replaced with a updated version.
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
And realistically, it wouldn't happen anyway.

FWIW, I'm not even a gun owner and I find the idea of repealing it frightening.
 

Ayutac

Developer who wants your help
157
Posts
12
Years
Interesting thought, but could the lack or removal of gun control be unconstitutional? After all, the amendment says "Well Regulated". And what is gun control? Regulation.

However, shall not be infringed. Regulations pertaining to who can and can not own weapons, primarily the federal laws that prohibit convicted felons such as murders and rapists, is against this.

The amendment requires us to have gun control, a form of regulation. But it also says that the rights shall not be infringed. Any form of regulation is, basically, the limitation of something because of, or due to, certian circumstances. In this case, regulation is limitation of the 2nd amendment. Which is, by the amendment, not allowed.

Ironic isn't it? The 2nd amendment both requires and forbids regulation.
From my history lessons I know the American Constitution has the flaw that it can't be changed, only amendments can be made. I wonder if this ever leads to a "revolution", as any change of this fact would be against the law.

Comparing with the Germans, we can change our constitution, but not the first paragraphs about human rights. Sounds pretty clever this way :P But well, ours came much later than the American's (and they looked over ours, too), so I can't blame you.
 

Shiny Bidoof

On fire
49
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 32
  • Ohio
  • Seen Jun 14, 2013
Listen people. Criminals will go to great lengths to commit crimes. By "people," what the guy means is people who come and try to disarm him. He's not crazy; he really is defending our rights. I agree with him, though I won't necessarily take part: there will be war. And it's not even really defending our rights, per se, it's defending our right to defend ourselves. Take a look at places like Britain and Sweden. In those places, you can't have guns and you can have guns under license, respectively, but you are expressly banned from defending yourself. If a robber or murderer comes into your house to rob or murder you, you have to let them do it. Even if the cops hear about it, they don't do anything about it. That happened there because of people like you, and that is what America will with little doubt come to if gun control laws are passed.

Kelario, I don't think many people are arguing to get rid of all guns ever (even with all of their problems. I probably will never own one, if only for the safety of my future children as many gun-related deaths of children are from accidents involving guns). Everyone agrees on using gun/weapon control, that's why you can't keep a grenade launcher of a barrel of agent orange in your garage. We're just arguing on the severity of gun control.

States with lax gun laws, such as Kansas and Alaska, for example, have quite low murder rates, and at least in Alaska it's big news to hear about a homicide. Then you take places like NYC and DC, where guns are banned and extremely hard to get, respectively. Just LOOK at their murder rates! It's ridiculous!

You also have to take into account the places themselves though. Alaska is much more rural than NYC. More people know each other and the overall population is lower. NYC is a huge city with tons of people, all moving in and out. Fewer people know each other and some don't even speak English. According to social disorder theory, this is where more crimes will take place anyway. Your evidence is likely a spurious relationship.

Take a look at Britain and Sweden, for example. A buttload of types of guns are illegal there, and it's illegal to defend yourself. As I've said before, if a murderer or robber decides he wants to murder or rob you, you have to let him do it or you can face years in prison. The state of New York is actually considering this. Imagine being in the position of the guy being murdered or robbed, and being unable to defend yourself.

I would like to see evidence of this, preferably not from sites like The Blaze or Infowars.

As for assault rifles, of course they're useful in war, that's what they were made for, but no ordinary citizen needs one.

Ironic isn't it? The 2nd amendment both requires and forbids regulation.

I always like to point out that the second amendment was written at a time when everyone had to use muskets, which were very inaccurate and took a long time to load. If the founding fathers were round today they would probably look at our modern guns and say "yeah, we should probably do something about this."
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
You know, I'm just going to throw this out there, but it pisses me off when both sides (especially the anti-gun side) uses the whole "the founding fathers were/weren't envisioning [insert modern weapon] here."

Who the bloody hell knows what the founded fathers were envisioning or intending?

Fun fact: You weren't alive in the 1700's. None of us here were. What the heck do you know about what they were thinking or what they would be thinking?
 

Shiny Bidoof

On fire
49
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 32
  • Ohio
  • Seen Jun 14, 2013
You know, I'm just going to throw this out there, but it pisses me off when both sides (especially the anti-gun side) uses the whole "the founding fathers were/weren't envisioning [insert modern weapon] here."

Who the bloody hell knows what the founded fathers were envisioning or intending?

Fun fact: You weren't alive in the 1700's. None of us here were. What the heck do you know about what they were thinking or what they would be thinking?

The whole reason for the second amendment was to make it a failsafe against government. So the people could fight back against tyranny. That whole concept has been made useless by modern technology. The government has an army of flying killer robots that they could use on anyone at any time.

I don't claim to know exactly what they were thinking, but I do know that their original reasons for the amendment are outdated. It was tailored for their own time, and we have the third amendment for this same reason. Being forced to house soldiers against their will was a real concern back then, but you never hear about it now.

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing for the removal of the amendment, but the idea that it should be our right to own any kind of weapon we want is ridiculous. That's why I brought it up. I don't even know if anyone is arguing for that.
 
14,092
Posts
14
Years
You know, I'm just going to throw this out there, but it pisses me off when both sides (especially the anti-gun side) uses the whole "the founding fathers were/weren't envisioning [insert modern weapon] here."

Who the bloody hell knows what the founded fathers were envisioning or intending?

Fun fact: You weren't alive in the 1700's. None of us here were. What the heck do you know about what they were thinking or what they would be thinking?

It matters because the Amendment was written during a time when the current technology is lightyears beyond anything in their wildest dreams. So a document for 1789 could not have been written that accounted for that kind of wholesale destruction. Applying modern interpretations to a 230ish year old piece of paper doesn't transfer & jive well. Hence the need for loose constructionalism.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Are gunshows really safe?

For the people that visit them?

The NRA, and pro-gun people, would have us believe that these shows are a safe, family, event where adults can browse and buy guns, and children can learn gun safety.

These cases show that gunshows are not really a safe place - for anyone.

MEDINA, Ohio -- Authorities say an accidental shooting at an Ohio gun show has left one man wounded.

Police in Medina (meh-DEYE'-nuh) say a gun dealer was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he'd bought Saturday when he accidentally pulled the trigger.

Police Chief Pat Berarducci (BEHR'-uh-doo-chee) says it appears the bullet struck the floor, then a longtime friend of the gun dealer. The man was wounded in the arm and leg.

Berarducci says the man was taken by helicopter to a Cleveland hospital. His condition isn't known.

Police say the gun's magazine had been removed from the firearm but one round remained in the chamber.

Medina is about 30 miles south of Cleveland.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/medina-ohio-gun-show_n_2512916.html

This case is made worse as it was the DEALER who accidently shot the man. Anyone with even the most basic amount of gun safety training would be able to tell you that you need to check the chamber, just to make sure no round was chambered.

Now, I thought that gun dealers had training in how to handle guns? I don't know, seems they would you know? I mean... You'd expect them to at least know about the product that they are selling.

Next up - Another prime example of why gun training, at least about how to safely handle and store them, needs to be required.

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Officials say three people were wounded when gunfire erupted at a gun show at the North Carolina state fairgrounds.

It happened Saturday at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show, a quarterly event that usually draws thousands of people.

State agriculture department spokesman Brian Long says a 12-gauge shotgun discharged while its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check it at a security entrance.

Two bystanders were hit by shotgun pellets and taken to a hospital. A retired deputy sheriff suffered a slight hand injury.

Long says the shotgun's owner, 36-year-old Gary Lynn Wilson of Wilmington, brought the weapon to the show to find a private buyer.

Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison says it's too early to know whether Wilson might be charged.

The show shut down early Saturday but will reopen Sunday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/dixie-gun-and-knife-show-shooting_n_2512445.html

You know... If this was the good guy with the gun, then bad guy wouldn't need to waste ammo - The good guy would proably kill himself when drawing his gun. Well shotgun. But you get my point.
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
Yeah, and a local gun show that happened at my area went successfully without much in the way of any incidents. I poll over the newspaper at work daily and not once did I see a report of something bad going on at the gun show recently.

Bad things happen with everything. People abuse their rights or accidents happen regardless of training. Every time you get in a car, you risk an accident with someone or causing one. Every time you get on a bike, you risk hitting something. Every time you go skiing, you run the risk of injury or death. Every time you drink alcohol you run the risk of stopping your heart. Every time you smoke you increase the risk of cancer. Every time you eat you increase the risk of choking. Every time you get on an airplane, there's always the danger of a crash. Every time I take a night walk I run the risk of getting attacked by a wild animal or some nut jumps me for my wallet or decides to shoot me with a gun; guess what, I still go out walking at night anyway.

People need to stop being so afraid all the time and realize that life and everything in it is hazardous, dangerous, and can carry a risk of injury or death. If you're so concerned about safety, put yourself in a bubble and never go outside or handle anything or make any contact with any organic or inorganic substance ever again. Then you still end up dead anyway.
 
Last edited:

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
I've been to dozens of gun shows and never had a problem. Accidents happen anywhere, this is just a bunch of sensationalist crap.
 

Sableye~

Back to PC~
4,016
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Jan 4, 2018
So long as the people know what they're doing, stuff like this doesn't have to happen.

Both of those events could very well have been avoided with common gun safety knowledge.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
I'm all for gun control, but this does seem like just a couple of accidents. I think if we stick to the larger issues around guns there's already a strong enough case for gun control and we don't need examples like this which could easily disintegrate into finger pointing. ("You don't have a good argument. All your examples are just accidents." and so on.)

That said, I'd never go to a gun show myself. As a pro-gun control liberal I feel like I'd be as safe as a black person walking into a KKK rally.
 
Back
Top