Munich Mall Shooting - - Page 16

Domo · #**151** 07-23-2016, 04:20 PM

Guns dont kill people, people kill guns. I agree.
But guns make it very easy for people to kill people.

About your "car accident" example; compared to guns, the primary function of a cars is to bring people from A to B. the primary function of guns is to hurt your target.

AzzarTheGod · #**152** 07-23-2016, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The people of Switzerland agree. Nearly everyone has a state issued rifle at home and yet no mass shootings or drunken rampages. Wonder why.

A rifle in closed-quarters? I'd slap that shit out of your hand gain control of it and beat you to death with it

Also like how all these ex-Nazis from Germany are on a quest to confiscate guns I.e. Domo/DocLanguar.

And I'm pretty sure at least one of you is Jewish. Shame on you for promoting gun confiscation.

Jarnauga · #**153** 07-23-2016, 04:32 PM

you can kill someone with a car, yes.. or with a 20 tons truck too, yes. But it's not the primary objective of a car, or a truck. The advantage you get from a car is far bigger than the danger of someone that might use it as a weapon. And that goes without saying that the use of a car is heavily reglemented: you have to get a license, you have to follow lots of road rules, speed limit, belt, maintenance of the car.. it's actually funny that there's more reglementation on acquiring a car than on getting a weapon in the us.

The only goal of a firearm is to kill, period. You can try to prettify by saying "defend myself" instead of kill, but that's exactly the same thing. What i find crazy is you all already accept limitations to that right: why can't you carry a weapon on a flight in the usa ? guess what: for safety. That said i'm sure i'm gonna find someone who thinks everyone would be safer if everyone would have guns in an airplane [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

barrettdc1 · #**154** 07-23-2016, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you can kill someone with a car, yes.. or with a 20 tons truck too, yes. But it's not the primary objective of a car, or a truck. The advantage you get from a car is far bigger than the danger of someone that might use it as a weapon. And that goes without saying that the use of a car is heavily reglemented: you have to get a license, you have to follow lots of road rules, speed limit, belt, maintenance of the car.. it's actually funny that there's more reglementation on acquiring a car than on getting a weapon in the us.

The only goal of a firearm is to kill, period. You can try to prettify by saying "defend myself" instead of kill, but that's exactly the same thing. What i find crazy is you all already accept limitations to that right: why can't you carry a weapon on a flight in the usa ? guess what: for safety. That said i'm sure i'm gonna find someone who thinks everyone would be safer if everyone would have guns in an airplane [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're a fucking moron. That's all.

barrettdc1 · #**155** 07-23-2016, 04:36 PM

It's ok my friend. When the end comes, and you are cowering in fear behind your shield of acceptance and love, know this. Us with our wall of guns and our sense of "gee, didn't see this fucking coming....not!' will laugh as you beg us for protection.

Tecmos Deception · #**156** 07-23-2016, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NegaStoat [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As was previously mentioned, different locations in America generate vastly different statistics on shootings and gun related crimes, even when similar population totals are compared. I find this part of the conversation is glossed over far too much.

I live in Northern California, and our gun related crimes are comparable to Sweden, Denmark, and other European regions. The same can be said for other parts of the nation. I do NOT want my gun rights to be modified in a more restrictive manner because of what's going on in Detroit, New York, and Chicago. I'm just asking for fair representation for my interests with the issue, and that's not happening.

Yep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lojik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

suicide or gang/drug related activity

...

Also it's statistically more dangerous to have a pool on your property than a gun.

About 1/3 of US gun homicides are suicides. Also related, only like 600-700 gun deaths per year in the US are accidental... about the same number of deaths due to structure fires set by cigarettes. But no one goes around campaigning for bans on pools (at all) or cigarettes (with equal fervor to the anti-gun people), even though guns almost undoubtedly serve greater good in society than smoking or pools in your back yard do.

Tecmos Deception · #**157** 07-23-2016, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only goal of a firearm is to kill, period. You can try to prettify by saying "defend myself" instead of kill, but that's exactly the same thing

Not raised around guns, were you?

This is the kind of ignorance of firearms I was talking about. People who don't understand them sometimes like to think they do, and they draw conclusions based on ignorance... which doesn't turn out well.

Firearms are not purely designed to kill. Read any decent article or book about self-defense with firearms and you'll note that it is hammered on again and again that the objective is to stop the attacker, not to kill the attacker. Sometimes stopping them means they die, sometimes (often, really... the majority of self-defense shootings don't result in a death) they don't.

Self-defense is about protecting yourself. When the attacker stops, you're good.

If people carrying for self-defense wanted to kill as the primary objective, they would use FMJ bullets to punch two holes guaranteed per shot and the guy would bleed out before any medical assistance arrived. But they don't. They use JHP bullets that dump their energy more quickly and induce trauma quickly to bring about a rapid stop to the conflict... but that are actually less likely to kill the target.

AzzarTheGod · #**158** 07-23-2016, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrettdc1 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're a fucking moron. That's all.

Oh (((Jarnauga))) here, make that 2 Jews arguing for gun confiscation instead of just (((Domo/DocLanguar))).

Bizarre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrettdc1 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's ok my friend. When the end comes, and you are cowering in fear behind your shield of acceptance and love, know this. Us with our wall of guns and our sense of "gee, didn't see this fucking coming....not!' will laugh as you beg us for protection.

Hate to pull the preparer card, but they will also be left desperately begging us for our resources that we have secured. Food, water, clothing, gasoline.

And them not even having a single piece bumps them way down the respect list. Even if they have never had to use the gun, the fact they can't/wont be able to produce one during a state of emergency makes them bottomfeeders among prepared men and women.

what kind of respect will these people get among the community? some will take pity on them, but others will just starve or be outcasted in certain communities.

When resources are scarce, those who don't possess a gun do not get a seat at the dinner table. Period. Again, its not about having to use the firearm. This is merely about not becoming a "persona non grata" during a time of emergency. A gun secures your seat at the table. Men will be judged based on their survival traits and masculinity, those who don't measure up will find themselves getting less food, less people caring about them, and generally being left to fend for themselves.

Jarnauga · #**159** 07-23-2016, 04:47 PM

insults instead of arguing, at least Tecmos here is being a gentlemen

Tecmos: do you consider a 9mm Glock to be a self defense firearm ?

AzzarTheGod · #**160** 07-23-2016, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

insults instead of arguing, at least Tecmos here is being a gentlemen

Tecmos: do you consider a 9mm Glock to be a self defense firearm ?

Jarnauga thinks he is going to get some type of respect for being anti-gun should a state of emergency or economic collapse occur. Bizarre.

Insults my ass, my point stands. You would be a persona non grata under certain conditions and that should be enough reason for you to own at least 2 firearms.