School Shooting

[MrFun]

I've seen a retarded "reasoning" going around on some people's FB page: "Criminals are not going to obey gun control laws."

So I guess we should not have laws of any kind, on anything then, since criminals won't obey laws anyway.

[regexcellent]

How is that retarded? Criminals don't obey the law; it's more or less a job requirement.

The point of gun control laws is to stop what is already criminal. Making it criminal twice is redundant.

[Sava]

you used the R word

[regexcellent]

Why?

Because your posting on this forum in the past has made me strongly suspect that you have something like schizophrenia.

[Felch]

I've seen a retarded "reasoning" going around on some people's FB page: "Criminals are not going to obey gun control laws."

So I guess we should not have laws of any kind, on anything then, since criminals won't obey laws anyway.

We shouldn't have laws that put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to criminals, and we shouldn't have laws that punish people for victimless crimes. Laws should serve to protect people's rights, not infringe upon them.

[Felch]

world domination

If that were true, he'd be a lot more entertaining. No, Sava, I think Imran is just a good for nothing hippie.

[Sava]

Because your posting on this forum in the past has made me strongly suspect that you have something like schizophrenia.

I'd tell you what it is, but I don't think they have a name for it yet.

Ming, snoopy, che, and q cubed (forgive me if I missed anyone) can vouch for my non-psychotic behavior in person.

I would say rah can vouch for me too, but that slacker didn't show up to the meet!

It's just cathartic to do it online.

askjhfsalhdfah BRAHJ RABHJ RABHR ABRA:

[MrFun]

We shouldn't have laws that put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to criminals, and we shouldn't have laws that punish people for victimless crimes. Laws should serve to protect people's rights, not infringe upon them.

How does banning private ownership of military-like guns with capability of hundreds of rounds of ammo, violate a person's right to bear arms, when they can obtain other types of firearms?

[Sava]

If that were true, he'd be a lot more entertaining. No, Sava, I think Imran is just a good for nothing hippie.

mmmm hippies
that free love would be better if the women knew wtf a razor was

[Sava]

How does banning private ownership of military-like guns with capability of hundreds of rounds of ammo, violate a person's right to bear arms, when they can obtain other types of firearms?

We should return to the Constitution. Americans can have all the black powder muskets they want!

[MrFun]

We shouldn't have laws that put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to criminals, and we shouldn't have laws that punish people for victimless crimes. Laws should serve to protect people's rights, not infringe upon them.

Following this "logic," we should allow citizens to personally own small nuclear warheads so that way, they can protect themselves from the military, should our government ever become oppressive. Allowing citizens to own small nuclear warheads will let them fight on more equal ground with the military and its technology and weaponry.

[Felch]

How does banning private ownership of military-like guns with capability of hundreds of rounds of ammo, violate a person's right to bear arms, when they can obtain other types of firearms?

How does telling somebody that they can only marry people of the opposite sex infringe on their civil liberties. They can still get married, right? Also what does "capability of hundreds of rounds of ammo" mean? Should guns fall to pieces after a hundred rounds are fired?

We should return to the Constitution. Americans can have all the black powder muskets they want!

Does the Constitution mention black powder muskets anywhere? Does the freedom of the press only extend to dusty old print shops using movable type?

Following this "logic," we should allow citizens to personally own small nuclear warheads so that way, they can protect themselves from the military, should our government ever become oppressive. Allowing citizens to own small nuclear warheads will let them fight on more equal ground with the military and its technology and weaponry.

The United States government has killed hundreds of thousands of people with nuclear weapons. Private citizens have killed zero. I think private citizens are more trustworthy than whatever corrupt narcissist becomes the next president.

[Hauldren Collider]

Modern psychiatry isn't science. It's a pseudo-scientific art form... or a game. Pin the neurotransmitter on the brain.

I don't agree with Sava much but for ****'s sake, QFMFT. This.

[Sava]

I don't agree with Sava much

neither does your face

[Felch]

There are approximately 270 million firearms in the United States, and in 2007 there were 31,224 deaths caused by firearms. So, assuming that guns kill people, it takes over 8,000 guns to kill a single person in a year.

There are about 1 million medical doctors in the United States, and in 2000 JAMA published a study showing that doctors kill 225,000 people every year. In other words, it takes about 4 medical doctors to kill a single person in a year.

Doctors are 2,000 times deadlier than guns. Just something to think about.