18 replies to this topic

[Zinix]

http://www.nbcnews.c...wednesday-n8694

At noon Wednesday, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal is scheduled to sign the sweeping legislation into law. One of the most permissive state gun laws in the nation, it will allow licensed owners to carry firearms into more public places than at any time in the past century, including bars and government buildings that don't have security checkpoints.The law also authorizes school districts to appoint staffers to carry firearms. It allows churches to "opt-in" if they want to allow weapons. Bars could already “opt-in” to allow weapons, but under the new law they must opt out if they want to bar weapons. Permit-holders who accidentally bring a gun to an airport 

Wow......

[Raiden]

'Merica

 

Ef this country sometimes. I often agree with the rest of the worlds view on us.

Edited by DreamCat, 22 April 2014 - 08:44 PM.

[Hank Hill]

'Merica

 

Ef this country sometimes. I often agree with the rest of the worlds view on us.

 

Yes, ef the constitutional right to bear arms. How dare we be allowed to protect ourselves.

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

I like how america is actually getting stupider by the day.

Everyone else was like "hey you know these things used for purely killing and maiming? Let's NOT give those out like candy." and it worked.

America is like "Guys look how many people are getting killed and injured things used purely for that purpose. WE NEED MORE OF THEM TO STOP THIS!"

Absolutely idiotic.

[SteventheSlayer]

Good on him. Doing the right thing despite all the flak he must be getting. That's what politicians should do.

Edited by SteventheSlayer, 23 April 2014 - 07:24 AM.

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

Good on him. Doing the right thing despite all the flak he must be getting. That's what politicians should do.

 

 

Yes, ef the constitutional right to bear arms. How dare we be allowed to protect ourselves.

You guys are unbelievable.

I'm sorry but it's straight up stupid to think that this is going to help your incredibly prevalent problem of mass killings. 

In Canada, we did the "wrong thing" gave up our "right to bear arms", and are currently in mourning for the largest mass killing we've ever seen in one our major cities.

The number of people killed was FIVE.

FIVE

The LARGEST mass killing in the history of one of our major cities is FIVE

The reason it was so low was because the attacker could only use a knife. Way too hard for him to get his hands on a gun. If he DID have a gun, it would have been so much worse, since the incident took place in a crowded party. If everyone had a gun, the whole thing would have gone to balls faster than you can say "freedom" and the numbers would have been so, so much worse.

Where do you guys get off on this stupid delusion that stricter gun laws, which have lowered shooting and killing in every other first world country by huge, HUGE amounts, for some strange reason won't work for you, and that the best way to solve this one-year-old-could-solve problem is to give everyone MORE. GUNS.

This is why the whole word hates your country.

[SteventheSlayer]

You make big letters and even bigger assumptions.

[iEatTacos]

America does the dumbest things. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're a joke.

[3Dude]

Makes sense. I wouldnt want to be anywhere near georgia without a gun.

Theres a reason Patton brought out a company of Shermans and threatened to blow Phenix city off the face of the Earth. (True story place is diiiiiiirty)

BUT on a serious note:

Hey Captain canada, must be convenient to pretend things like the Sheldon massacre dont exist. I mean, it was SSOOOOOOO long ago. Like 2006. Thats back when the wii and ps360 came out, its like ancient history. Its like, so old those 8 defenseless law abiding men who were shot to death are alive again already.

Also, 2011 study by Dr. Caillin Langmann found no beneficial effect on Canada's homicide or spousal homicide rates as a result of any of Canada's major gun control legislation since 1974, including FAC and PAL licensing, storage laws, the characterization of many types of firearms as prohibited or restricted, magazine restrictions, etc., all of which were enacted in that time period.

'The Langmann study concludes that the Canadian gun control laws which created and tightly regulate "restricted firearms", such as handguns and AR-15's, have had no effect on homicide.

'Currently, shooting and stabbing represent the two most common mechanisms for homicide in Canada, each accounting for approximately 30% of murders.'

firearm suicides declined by 55% (1287 individuals to a low of 568) [41] while the number of non-firearm suicides increased by 52% (2,046 in 1977 to 3,116 in 2003).[citation needed] In response to the 2001 registration requirements, some psychiatric doctors have argued that the legislation is not as effective as treatment in the prevention of suicide, given alternate mechanisms are available for suicide.

Oh, and unlike canada, whos homicide rate only dropped 5-10%.

The US has seen a 50% decrease in firearms homicides since 1993.
http://www.pewsocial...public-unaware/

Gun control doesnt decrease homicides and crime. Fixing the damn economy does.

But hooray for blind hate, unthinking intolerance, and ignorant arrogance.

[Mesan3]

Oh NO! through a litany of unseen circumstances, that tjust so happens to be the same state I live in.

[3Dude]

Oh NO! through a litany of unseen circumstances, that tjust so happens to be the same state I live in.

Im sorry. I couldnt stand living there. I cant. I cant. I cant stand when I get sent to Benning on business.Im sorry man, but there is something WRONG with the people there.

[Raiden]

Yes, ef the constitutional right to bear arms. How dare we be allowed to protect ourselves.

lol protect what a load of BS. That's a fall back scape goat excuse in the US for it's massive raging hard on for them.

Edited by DreamCat, 23 April 2014 - 09:17 AM.

[3Dude]

lol protect what a load of BS. That's a fall back scape goat excuse in the US for it's massive raging hard on for them.

Worked out pretty damn well protecting ourselves from the British.

[grahamf]

You make big letters and even bigger assumptions.

Not really. He's simply stating that due to Canadian laws it is much more difficult for ANYONE to get a hold of ranged weapons, not just sane law-abiding citizens.

 

And just think for a moment what would happen if this scenario happeneed while EVERYONE had guns. The shooter would still be able to shoot about five people or so (more, depending on how tightly packed everyone is) before people would realize what happened and be able to pull out their guns and turn off the safety (unless they always leave the safety off and risk shooting off their nuts all the time). And they would shoot at the shooter, with a percentage of the bullets passing through the shooter and into the innocent people situated right behind the shooter.

 

unless you assume everyone can immediately recognize a potential shooter and ignore the emotional and legal resistance to shooting him before he attacks. but then that person may be no better, but just begging for an excuse to shoot someone.

 

besides, how many shootings happen where the shooter had to use or even capable of using illegal methods to obtain a gun? As far as I've seen generally shootings seem to happen by people purchasing a gun legally or 'borrowing" it from friends/family that do not properly store/secure their weapons. not very many shooters actually have the ability or luck needed to obtain a gun from online or a dealer or whatever. If the argument that shooters can still obtain guns when they are outlawed is true, then shouldn't there be more attacs using high powered weaponry such as machine guns or even bazookas? in countries such as Canada access to weaponry is significantly limited, so that potential shooters would more likely be caught obtaining illegal weapons or use less effective methods such as knives.

[SteventheSlayer]

First off, I want to make it clear that I dislike arguing about stuff like this, as it makes the shootings seem more like statistics. 

 

Second, since you are using hypothetical situations, here's mine.

You take away the founder-given right to bear arms. Now people have no way to defend themselves. However, (I know this has been said to death, but that doesn't make it any less true.) criminals, being what they are, would still be able to get guns, through the black market, smuggling them in, etc. It would be harder, but quite obviously not impossible. Now we have criminals with guns, positive that the people they are robbing/shooting don't have guns. 

 

Now if the "hard to get but not impossible" argument doesn't convince you, think of what happened recently. There was a school stabbing.

You get that? No guns involved. So you can take all the rights away you want, and there will still be murder, there'll still be crime. Just like there has been that stuff almost as long as humans have been on this earth, even before there were guns, or even knives.

 

I have way too many other things to say, but those are the ones most related to this particular discussion.

Edited by SteventheSlayer, 24 April 2014 - 09:08 AM.

[Xiombarg]

Sure allow guns in bars now, what could possibly go wrong?

 

It's not like you're allowed to drive DUI, you might kill someone.  Just give someone a gun while intoxicated, things will be just fine.

[Mewbot]

Pew! Pew! Boom!

'Murica!

 

 

Seriously, though, if people are supposed to be using their guns to defend themselves, then how come nobody does? How come you never hear of shootings being stopped by someone defending themselves by shooting back? Also, that argument about criminals still having access to weapons, while correct, is a bad argument since most shootings are done using legally obtained firearms, by people who are drunk, high, or just on a whim. These are killings done by normal people, they're not planned months in advance. If the killers didn't already have access to a gun, they weren't going to find an obscure black market, buy a weapon, and then do the shooting on the same whim. By the time they even start searching for a black market like that, their brief moment of insanity, despair, or whatever the hell made them want to go on a rampage like that, is over. And they realise what they were just thinking of doing. And they don't do it.

 

Now, I'm all for the constitution or whatever, but you guys need to stop acting as if it can't be changed. It's been changed multiple times, but suddenly when it involves your precious weapons you can't handle changing it.

[grahamf]

Here's a thought experiment: If American cannot implement laws that other, peaceful, countries appreciate without fear of the laws backfiring; is it because they simply don't want to or is it because the the country fundamentally cannot support such laws without a complete restructuring of government and culture?

[SteventheSlayer]

Here's a thought experiment: If American cannot implement laws that other, peaceful, countries appreciate without fear of the laws backfiring; is it because they simply don't want to or is it because the the country fundamentally cannot support such laws without a complete restructuring of government and culture?

 I hate to be the one to tell you this, but America isn't like other countries.