Check this anti gun bullshit out.

[bazzypants]

'The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is an act of the U.S. Congress prohibiting any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a loaded or unsecured firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25). The law applies to public, private, and parochial elementary schools and high schools, and to non-private property within 1000 feet of them. It provides that the states and their political subdivisions may issue licenses that exempt the licensed individuals from the prohibition.'

 

Seems reasonable. What is your exact issue with it PBR?

[TJMitchell]

 

 

 

 

I live on 5 - 10 acres. I think total property area is closer to 7. Nice house, pool, but I'm kind of out in the woods, good distance between neighbors, and not far away from a turkey preserve (protected wildlife area). We have florida panthers, bears, boars, bobcats, coyotes, alligators, diamondback and pygmy rattlesnakes, the occasional wild pack of dogs, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some other animals out here.

 

I have 6 dogs. Usually when they're outside they're in a pack or there's at least a few of them together. My property is fenced in, gate at the front near the road, so I don't mind letting them roam. There isn't any area where they wouldn't be visible if I was on the same side of the house as them, and they've had no issue chasing off animals from the property.

 

Last year one of my dogs got out by herself, not sure how long she was outside, I was taking a shit, but a friend of mine heard a commotion near my front gate and noticed my dog was being attacked in the front of my property by 3 wild dogs. Could of been more, I didn't exactly look in the heat of the moment when I got out there. He yelled for us and ran out there and tried to physically break it up and I got off the shitter, grabbed a gun, went out there and shot them. Rushed my dog to hospital, she almost died, had multiple blood transfusions, cost me 30k-40k to save her and her leg, and now she's alive, leg is ok and she runs around and swims just fine. If I would of been out there swinging with sticks, or even a fucking machete, it would of taken a lot longer to get those dogs away. My buddy was out there swinging and kicking for the fences and it did nothing. 3 bullets + a couple 'double taps' and my dog was avenged.

 

I could of let the rest of my dogs out and they would of fucked them up - they've killed a bobcat, possums, and my male once took down what we'll call a very large cat but gotta worry about things like vet bills, rabies, etc. You don't want your dogs, even if protecting their turf, killing animals if they don't have to.

 

Better to have one and not need one, than need one and not have one. if you don't agree don't own one, but don't condemn the people who do.

 

I'm not saying our gun laws or the process of obtaining one isn't flawed or couldn't be approved... but the argument of "why do you need one?" is fucking stupid.

 

I have no argument with people owning guns if they are licensed to own them and have had sufficient background checks. I go to my uncles farm quite a bit to go hunting. But that's with bolt action rifles and the like.

 

My "why do you need one" comment isn't about ALL guns its about some guns. Why do you need an AR-15 Assault rifle? (not you specifically, im talking in general)

[Guest]

 

I have no argument with people owning guns if they are licensed to own them and have had sufficient background checks. I go to my uncles farm quite a bit to go hunting. But that's with bolt action rifles and the like.

 

My "why do you need one" comment isn't about ALL guns its about some guns. Why do you need an AR-15 Assault rifle? (not you specifically, im talking in general)

 

I think your stance would make more sense if you argued against most guns. Mass shootings, suicides and violent crimes involving a gun are overwhelmingly done with hand guns. So should your stance really be just about an AR-15? Unless I'm to believe that one inanimate object is somehow worse based on how it looks. I really want to know the answer about what the difference is outside of appearance? One is far more likely used in shootings and crime and the other is big, scary and fits the anti-gun narrative.

 

 

Here is a video of people picking guns they think are worse based solely on how they look.

 

https://youtu.be/SqJ_4YhYMhE

[TJMitchell]

 

I think your stance would make more sense if you argued against most guns. Mass shootings, suicides and violent crimes involving a gun are overwhelmingly done with hand guns. So should your stance really be just about an AR-15? Unless I'm to believe that one inanimate object is somehow worse based on how it looks. I really want to know the answer about what the difference is outside of appearance? One is far more likely used in shootings and crime and the other is big, scary and fits the anti-gun narrative.

 

 

Here is a video of people picking guns they think are worse based solely on how they look.

 

https://youtu.be/SqJ_4YhYMhE

 

I use the AR-15 as an example as that is the gun PBR had in his picture which my original reply of "And I'm sitting here wondering why you need one?" came from (http://www.mmatycoon.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=34120&page=131&do=findComment&comment=849908). I still haven't gotten an answer either. I do think most guns are unnecessary. Why would a civilian need a semi automatic weapon that can fire off 30 rounds per magazine?

 

Self defense? Overkill. Hunting? Overkill. Target Shooting? Fine. Leave it locked up at a shooting range where that is the only place you can access it.

[TJMitchell]

http://i68.tinypic.com/aa8uxd.png

 

 

In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.

 

The 1996 reforms introduced in Australia came just months after a mass shooting known as the Port Arthur massacre, when Martin Bryant used two semi-automatic rifles to kill 35 people and wound 23 others in Port Arthur. The reforms had the support of all major political parties.

The lead author of the study, Professor Simon Chapman, said a similar study had been conducted 10 years ago, and that the researchers had repeated it to see if gun-related deaths were continuing to decline, finding that they had.

“I’ve calculated that for every person in Australia shot in a massacre, 139 [people] are shot through firearm-related suicide or homicides, so they are much more common,” Chapman said.

“We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.”

I know gun reform isn't going to be the be all and end all of gun related deaths but it's a bloody start.

[Guest]

"Why would a civilian need a semi automatic weapon that can fire off 30 rounds per magazine"

 

So it's a psychobabble argument over needs and wants. So why would civilian need to rent a 19 tonne cargo truck that killed 84 in Nice France? Why would a civilian need a pilot's license that they could use to fly into buildings? Why do you need bars that serve alcohol or allow smoking in public places? Now I know you're reading this and saying its not the same thing, but they are. I don't think any person needs to leave their house to drink a beer. Then drive home and kill someone because they were ignorant of the dangers. Alcohol kills way more people than guns and yet it's okay to have a place that you must drive to and from. So I'll answer your question when you solve my bar/alcohol problem.

 

 

 

 

http://i68.tinypic.com/aa8uxd.png

 

 

In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.

 

The 1996 reforms introduced in Australia came just months after a mass shooting known as the Port Arthur massacre, when Martin Bryant used two semi-automatic rifles to kill 35 people and wound 23 others in Port Arthur. The reforms had the support of all major political parties.

The lead author of the study, Professor Simon Chapman, said a similar study had been conducted 10 years ago, and that the researchers had repeated it to see if gun-related deaths were continuing to decline, finding that they had.

“I’ve calculated that for every person in Australia shot in a massacre, 139 [people] are shot through firearm-related suicide or homicides, so they are much more common,” Chapman said.

“We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.”

I know gun reform isn't going to be the be all and end all of gun related deaths but it's a bloody start.

 

 

That chart tells me that gun bans only speed up the already trending down gun violence. Since it was trending down, could the numbers be near what they are now without the ban? Impossible to tell but easy to know that the gun ban is just one of the factors that lowered the numbers. It's a good thing it went down but comparing the 2 countries is not apples to apples.

[GBK16]

"Why would a civilian need a semi automatic weapon that can fire off 30 rounds per magazine"

 

So it's a psychobabble argument over needs and wants. So why would civilian need to rent a 19 tonne cargo truck that killed 84 in Nice France? Why would a civilian need a pilot's license that they could use to fly into buildings? Why do you need bars that serve alcohol or allow smoking in public places? Now I know you're reading this and saying its not the same thing, but they are. I don't think any person needs to leave their house to drink a beer. Then drive home and kill someone because they were ignorant of the dangers. Alcohol kills way more people than guns and yet it's okay to have a place that you must drive to and from. So I'll answer your question when you solve my bar/alcohol problem.

 

 

Not really a valid argument. One point that takes it down completely is "What is the primary purpose of those things?".

 

Cargo Truck = Transport

Planes = Transport

Alcohol = Consumation

 

Guns = To Kill People

 

Even with Alcohol, there is a limit to how much you are legally allowed to consume before it becomes illegal to drive. That whole argument of "Oh this object is also bad, why aren't they doing something about that?". So if someone went around on a killing spree with a frying pan, let's say he killed 40 people somehow, you would suddenly say "Oh Frying Pans are bad"? Like fuck you would.

 

I'm very much in the middle when it comes to the topic. On one hand, Yes guns really need to be regulated better. Nobody should need a flipping military level weapon to defend themselves.

 

But on the flip side, it would be hard to pass anything like that in the government. The gun culture is too much over there, with too many in the public banging on about the 2nd Amendment. Plus, rounding up the guns that would then be deemed illegal to own would be nigh on impossible, considering people would hear of it, and take measures to hide such guns if they don't wanna hand them over, and given how some of the outcry has been, some would even threaten to shoot anybody who arrived to confiscate them.

 

TL;DR = America is kinda fucked when it comes to guns

[Rambo]

Over 350 million Americans. Over 265 million guns owned by Americans. A minuscule percentage of those guns kill people.

 

More people + more guns = more gun related deaths. That's just common sense.

 

I'm very much in the middle when it comes to the topic. On one hand, Yes guns really need to be regulated better. Nobody should need a flipping military level weapon to defend themselves.

 

You're right... nobody should need it. But history has told us that occasionally they can come in handy.

 

Why need a military level weapon for defense: Defend vs military. Defend vs invading enemy force. Defend vs large gangs. Defend vs pack of hungry animals. Defend vs Alien invasion. Defend vs zombie apocalypse...and if you needed to kill a group of people, they're good for that too.

 

I'm not saying it's 100% necessary or required, but you never know. History tends to repeat itself and as unlikely and improbable as it may seem... once again, it's better to have something and not need it, than need it and not have it.

 

and if you just like them, and like collecting them, and like shooting them, that's your prerogative.

 

But on the flip side, it would be hard to pass anything like that in the government. The gun culture is too much over there, with too many in the public banging on about the 2nd Amendment.

 

Most of those bible thumping idiots don't even know what the definition of an amendment is.

 

Plus, rounding up the guns that would then be deemed illegal to own would be nigh on impossible, considering people would hear of it, and take measures to hide such guns if they don't wanna hand them over, and given how some of the outcry has been, some would even threaten to shoot anybody who arrived to confiscate them.

 

Under no circumstances should the government be knocking on your door to confiscate something you legally paid for. It would go very bad and they know it.

 

TL;DR = America is kinda fucked when it comes to guns.

 

That much we can agree on.

 

I'd like to see them crack down on rape and pedophile prevention as much as they target firearms, because gun-related deaths don't outnumber the amount of rape/pedophile incidents.. and how many people responsible for gun-related deaths were victims of rape/molestation/abuse... and unlike gun related deaths, which are at least reported 90% of the time with the other 10% body is probably missing... people are getting away with it on the daily.

 

Not a whole lot of people shooting 20+ people and it going unnoticed. All kinds of people getting away with harming children. People who shoot each other get a life sentence or death penalty. Violate a child and more often than not you'll be out again one day to do it again.

 

We need more than just "gun-reform". An entire culture change is due.

 

You want to prevent tragedies like pedophiles, rape, mass-shootings... imo public executions could go a long way into striking fear into the population.

 

We could go straight up idiocracy too and put this shit on PPV, charge people $5 to watch it, and allow people to vote on their phones (for the small price of $1.00 USD) on how the guy dies.

1. Firing Squad
2. Hanging
3. Fire-pit
4. Shark Tank
5. Gladiator Dome
6. Electrocution
7. Castration and Life Imprisonment
8. Crucification Jesus-style

 

Not sure how this type of stuff would impact people mentally or long term, but it'd sure as hell generate more money overnight than the private prisons are making for mass-incarcerating people.

[Guest]

Not really a valid argument. One point that takes it down completely is "What is the primary purpose of those things?".

 

Cargo Truck = Transport

Planes = Transport

Alcohol = Consumation

 

Guns = To Kill People

 

Even with Alcohol, there is a limit to how much you are legally allowed to consume before it becomes illegal to drive. That whole argument of "Oh this object is also bad, why aren't they doing something about that?". So if someone went around on a killing spree with a frying pan, let's say he killed 40 people somehow, you would suddenly say "Oh Frying Pans are bad"? Like fuck you would.

 

I'm very much in the middle when it comes to the topic. On one hand, Yes guns really need to be regulated better. Nobody should need a flipping military level weapon to defend themselves.

 

But on the flip side, it would be hard to pass anything like that in the government. The gun culture is too much over there, with too many in the public banging on about the 2nd Amendment. Plus, rounding up the guns that would then be deemed illegal to own would be nigh on impossible, considering people would hear of it, and take measures to hide such guns if they don't wanna hand them over, and given how some of the outcry has been, some would even threaten to shoot anybody who arrived to confiscate them.

 

TL;DR = America is kinda fucked when it comes to guns

 

Thank you for proving my point and doing exactly what I said someone would do. I'm not sure you even read what I said " Now I know you're reading this and saying its not the same thing, but they are. I don't think any person needs to leave their house to drink a beer" His (TJ's) argument was why do you need it and you said what you do with them and not why you need it. So you need alcohol because it's consumed? Bars are legal because alcohol is consumed? Your emotion on the subject gets laid out when you say guns kill people as there primary purpose. With little research it's found that guns save more lives than they claim. Guns don't kill, people do. Alcohol doesn't kill, it's the person that drank that should get the blame. BTW, they have laws about how to use a gun just like they do with drinking. How come when the law is broke it's the guns fault? How come when one inanimate object kills (gun) it's the guns fault? But when someone does it with a frying pan it's the persons fault?

 

So I'll ask again, why do you need alcohol and bars? Remember, alcohol kills more people than guns. So saying guns kill is not a valid argument. It's merely a copout because one you like and the other you don't.

[Trump2020]

[GBK16]

 

Thank you for proving my point and doing exactly what I said someone would do. I'm not sure you even read what I said " Now I know you're reading this and saying its not the same thing, but they are. I don't think any person needs to leave their house to drink a beer" His (TJ's) argument was why do you need it and you said what you do with them and not why you need it. So you need alcohol because it's consumed? Bars are legal because alcohol is consumed? Your emotion on the subject gets laid out when you say guns kill people as there primary purpose. With little research it's found that guns save more lives than they claim. Guns don't kill, people do. Alcohol doesn't kill, it's the person that drank that should get the blame. BTW, they have laws about how to use a gun just like they do with drinking. How come when the law is broke it's the guns fault? How come when one inanimate object kills (gun) it's the guns fault? But when someone does it with a frying pan it's the persons fault?

 

So I'll ask again, why do you need alcohol and bars? Remember, alcohol kills more people than guns. So saying guns kill is not a valid argument. It's merely a copout because one you like and the other you don't.

Guns were designed for military use in the way of defeating other armies through the means of killing their soldiers. So yeah, they were designed to kill people.

 

Trying to pass off the fact that numerous massacres have happened in the US over the past few years with Guns being the primary weapon in the vast majority of them, by comparing it to alcohol consumption which is another topic entirely, is a pisspoor Strawman argument. The topic is about the issue with massacres committed by Guns.

 

Just to entertain your side argument, how much advertising and awareness is put in about Mentally Unstable people and Guns? Now, how much is put into Drinking and Driving? Personally, I don't actually drink that much. If a regulation was put in that you can only consume X amount of units if you are in a public venue, I wouldn't object to it at all. Sure, it would never happen, but that's pretty much my stance on alcohol.

 

As for your counter point on the Frying Pan analogy - It comes back to their purpose in design. Guns were made to kill people, sure they protect lives also at this point, but quite frankly, outright abstaining the fact a Gun is the weapon used in almost all of these fatal massacres is shameful. Even PBR admits shit needs to be done on it. It's clear the checks that are meant to be carried out when purchasing a firearm aren't always used, so sorting that out would at least aid in preventing some future shit from happening.

 

Also - Don't try and put people on a side of the line purely because you disagree with them. I'm very much in the middle on the topic, with an understanding for both sides arguments. Let's put it this way though, if nothing changes on the topic, then all that will happen is more and more mass killings will happen. And for the love of god, don't be one of those twats saying to give every cbomb a gun. Even the idea of schools having security would be an improvement to the situation, but lowering the calibre of weapon available to the general public would also help. I'm sure people like PBR, despite me feeling his gun collection being pretty excessive, use them for recreational purposes. And that demographic will feel hard done by when it comes to the topic of guns when shit like this happens, but at the same point, something has got to give on the issue.

[Guest]

Guns were designed for military use in the way of defeating other armies through the means of killing their soldiers. So yeah, they were designed to kill people.

 

Trying to pass off the fact that numerous massacres have happened in the US over the past few years with Guns being the primary weapon in the vast majority of them, by comparing it to alcohol consumption which is another topic entirely, is a pisspoor Strawman argument. The topic is about the issue with massacres committed by Guns.

 

Just to entertain your side argument, how much advertising and awareness is put in about Mentally Unstable people and Guns? Now, how much is put into Drinking and Driving? Personally, I don't actually drink that much. If a regulation was put in that you can only consume X amount of units if you are in a public venue, I wouldn't object to it at all. Sure, it would never happen, but that's pretty much my stance on alcohol.

 

As for your counter point on the Frying Pan analogy - It comes back to their purpose in design. Guns were made to kill people, sure they protect lives also at this point, but quite frankly, outright abstaining the fact a Gun is the weapon used in almost all of these fatal massacres is shameful. Even PBR admits shit needs to be done on it. It's clear the checks that are meant to be carried out when purchasing a firearm aren't always used, so sorting that out would at least aid in preventing some future shit from happening.

 

Also - Don't try and put people on a side of the line purely because you disagree with them. I'm very much in the middle on the topic, with an understanding for both sides arguments. Let's put it this way though, if nothing changes on the topic, then all that will happen is more and more mass killings will happen. And for the love of god, don't be one of those twats saying to give every cbomb a gun. Even the idea of schools having security would be an improvement to the situation, but lowering the calibre of weapon available to the general public would also help. I'm sure people like PBR, despite me feeling his gun collection being pretty excessive, use them for recreational purposes. And that demographic will feel hard done by when it comes to the topic of guns when shit like this happens, but at the same point, something has got to give on the issue.

 

 

 

If you're only going to continue based on opinion and not fact that guns were solely made to kill people, whats the point of debating? Ignorance to a subject you're debating is just lazy. Till you educate yourself and start to use some critical thought, speaking to you about this matter is pointless.

[GBK16]

 

 

 

If you're only going to continue based on opinion and not fact that guns were solely made to kill people, whats the point of debating? Ignorance to a subject you're debating is just lazy. Till you educate yourself and start to use some critical thought, speaking to you about this matter is pointless.

All you've done is pose strawman arguments and cried that *shock* I pointed out the flaw you knew there was in your argument. I agree, it is pointless for you to speak to me on this matter, your stubborn attitude prevents you from seeing any viewpoint other than your own.

 

Also, you do realise everybody has posted their opinion? It's only people cry about things being opinions when they ain't got anything left to say.

[Timqwe]

 

 

 

If you're only going to continue based on opinion and not fact that guns were solely made to kill people, whats the point of debating? Ignorance to a subject you're debating is just lazy. Till you educate yourself and start to use some critical thought, speaking to you about this matter is pointless.

It's not an opinion though. The first gunlike machinerie was created by the Chinese to be used in battle

[GBK16]

It's not an opinion though. The first gunlike machinerie was created by the Chinese to be used in battle

Apparently he doesn't understand the creation of Gunpowder

[Rambo]

You guys live in a protected society because of guns. Because of guns, firearms, weapons, etc. you have the security and comfort you do and don't have to worry about tribes of mongolians or Byzantine's pillaging your land and raping your women. You guys are protected because your government has weapons. A lot of us (Americans) like to own guns in situations where the government fails to protect us or prevent crime... and some people enjoy shooting them.

 

It's not an opinion though. The first gunlike machinerie was created by the Chinese to be used in battle

 

Were they created to kill the enemy, or to protect yourself from the enemy?

 

Apparently he doesn't understand the creation of Gunpowder

 

according to google it was an accident from trying to create a potion of immortality lol.

 

 

 

 

 

I would be willing to trade in each one of my guns for a honey badger trained like a K9. Who needs guns to protect you when you have honey badgers?

[GBK16]

 

 

according to google it was an accident from trying to create a potion of immortality lol.

 

Few stories about it, one of them has it pinned that an earlier form of Gunpowder was used for Fireworks. It's commonly accepted that it then lead to the creation of the first gun that used gunpowder for military purposes against their enemies.

[Guest]

Few stories about it, one of them has it pinned that an earlier form of Gunpowder was used for Fireworks. It's commonly accepted that it then lead to the creation of the first gun that used gunpowder for military purposes against their enemies.

 

 

Few stories about it but you still run with it as fact? When you attach an assumption to a piece of evidence, you start to bend the narrative to support it and prejudice yourself. Sorry you continue to prove my point.

[Guest]

 

 

 

We're they created to kill the enemy, or to protect yourself from the enemy?

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, thought and logic go along way. I'm guessing emotion made that possibility null and void.

[kenlow73]

Ok, this is what I posted on Facebook the other day,,,,

[Rambo]

Few stories about it, one of them has it pinned that an earlier form of Gunpowder was used for Fireworks. It's commonly accepted that it then lead to the creation of the first gun that used gunpowder for military purposes against their enemies.

 

I thought it was fireworks too when I was replying to the comment but decided to google it so I didn't seem like a misinformed asshole. That's what popped up lol.

 

"I might go into a rage and hurt myself or somebody else"

 

[Timqwe]

More shootings before and after you banned semis, compared to when they were banned, and higher victim counts.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

[kenlow73]

More shoptings before and after you banned semis, compared to when they were banned, and higher victim counts.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

yeah and one in ten make it in the news.

[Timqwe]

yeah and one in ten make it in the news.

that's relevant how?

[Grasman]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/is-weapon-more-important-someones-12057023

 

I have huge respect for this individual "legal gun owner".

Someone like PBR, or really, any gun owner with a shred of a soul left,

really should watch the video and hear what this man has to say.