50 shot dead - Orlando shooting

Forum Sponsor
Neil_V said:
All of those things have everyday uses outside of killing or practicing to kill (i guess that's sport).. just saying :rolleyes:
What I'm not saying is ban all guns, there are some legit reasons to own some types of firearm; but Jesus, use some common sense in your arguments
Click to expand...

common sense implies a degree of reasoning and not being a linear thinker
 
Guys. Nevermind the stuff that kills 600,000. Let's get those scary rifles out of civilian hands so we can save 350 people. Lol
 
Btw I wasnt kidding about confiscations and bans. I welcome it.
 
Snobike Mike said:
So citizens can't be terrorists nor can they have terrorist affiliations, connections, and allegiances? Is there such a thing as a terrorist in your world? "Citizens" also do most of the bombings, airplane/building connections, stabbings, and what not. What's your plan there?

But you want to focus on guns. I guess you might as well take lawfully owned property from 80 million other citizens just in case............

Do you care about pressure cooker violence, airplane violence and knife violence with the same fervor you do gun violence? Shouldn't we confiscate all of those as well "just in case"?
Click to expand...

You'd have to be Beatrix Kiddo to kill 50 people in a club with a knife. Any tard can take out a bunch of people with an AK. That's the difference.
 
mmmnaked said:
Guys. Nevermind the stuff that kills 600,000. Let's get those scary rifles out of civilian hands so we can save 350 people. Lol
Click to expand...

damn straight so no nut can go into a school and MURDER/SLAUGHTER little kids.
I bet you wouldn't have the balls to repeat half of your diatribe to any of these parents face to face.

 
What why would I politicize those poor kids deaths? That's sick.
 
mmmnaked said:
What why would I politicize those poor kids deaths? That's sick.
Click to expand...


nice try with your NRA talking points.
It's not politics you going and talking to any of those parents, that a private meeting.

What is sick is doing nothing to prevent the next bunch of kids being slaughtered the same way.
They will have died in vain. That is SICK.
 
mmmnaked said:
What why would I politicize those poor kids deaths? That's sick.
Click to expand...

It's a FACT that the gun nut types want to pretend it did not happen.
You are right to a degree that it is sick that a country would do NOTHING to prevent the next bunch of innocent people being killed.
Oh wait 49 got slaughtered a week ago...carry on wait for 100 then maybe we might conduct a study to see if their is a problem.
 
WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING SO THOSE KIDS DIDNT DIE IN VAIN

(psst, D, we're Canadian)
 
mmmnaked said:
WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING SO THOSE KIDS DIDNT DIE IN VAIN

(psst, D, we're Canadian)
Click to expand...



And your point is? we send money to other countries for various things to help their society.
We send money and other resources to Africa to stop the spread of Ebola...wonder why???

And there you are with that mentality, you left your home country as you stated due to turmoil??? and you come here to spread the same mentality that plagued your home country.

It's called prevention.
 
Yo D, we cant change the US Constitution bro. We Canadian. GTAM. Toronto, bro. Ontario. Ya dig?
 
mmmnaked said:
What why would I politicize those poor kids deaths? That's sick.
Click to expand...

Actually, what's sick is (a) ignoring the fact that nearly half a million people lost their lives to guns on US soil between 2001 and 2013 but worse, (b) trivializing the deaths of "only" 350 people because they happened to be shot with rifles. What is wrong with you?

You completely ignore 'a' so you can play sick statistical games with 'b'.

Damn yo, wipe your drool and join us back in Canada
Click to expand...


Indeed. One glaring difference between the US and Canada is our sane gun laws and regulations. Most Canadians want to keep it that way.

What's interesting is how many "law abiding" Canadian gun owners suddenly decided the law didn't apply to them when it came to the gun registry. Effective or not it was the law and it was ignored by a great many gun owners.

 
Last edited:
Blackfin said:
Actually, what's sick is (a) ignoring the fact that nearly half a million people lost their lives to guns on US soil between 2001 and 2013 but worse, (b) trivializing the deaths of "only" 350 people because they happened to be shot with rifles. What is wrong with you?

You completely ignore 'a' so you can play sick statistical games with 'b'.



Indeed. One glaring difference between the US and Canada is our sane gun laws and regulations. Most Canadians want to keep it that way.

What's interesting is how many "law abiding" Canadian gun owners suddenly decided the law didn't apply to them when it came to the gun registry. Effective or not it was the law and it was ignored by a great many gun owners.
Click to expand...
350 people a year is nothing. Only bleeding heart manginas would expect legislative action based on such an insignificant statistic.

Also there was an amnesty in place for the LGR so nobody gave 2 *****. That's like saying you'd obey the speed limit if they told you they wouldn't ticket you. Lmao.
 
Snobike Mike said:
Nice try on the strawman argument, but I'm not advocating seizing property of any law abiding citizen.

And of course terrorists aren't law abiding nor are the often citizens now are they?

In terms of mental health, I agree that if they are truly mental cases, then it would be wise to have protections enforced, that is what I've been advocating. But this does not apply to 10's of millions of law abiding gun owners on this continent, nor should they be penalized because there are mental health issues in society.

Focus on the root causes, not a singular inanimate object because they are "scary".

PS, Your hypocrisy on focusing on only one type of inanimate object that "could" cause harm while blatantly ignoring others that also can/do cause harm does not go unnoticed. ;)
Click to expand...
Because a gun is designed to harm.

The quintessential representative of lethal violence and death around the world is guns. That's what it was engineered and created for. Make death available to the populace in an easy yet efficient package. (more efficient and easy to use than a knife, less dangerous/volatile than bombs)

Can other things be used to kill? Yes. Cars and airplanes and pressure cookers can kill.
If you ask a toddler what a car or airplane or pressure cooker is for, they'll be able to tell you though, made to drive, to fly or to cook stuff.

Same thing goes for a gun! Gun is for pow pow you're dead! lol
Knives, yes they can kill, but they're a lot less efficient and lethal when you compare gun to knives in the same environment. Plus they have a utilitarian usage as well that we've used it for since the dawn of time.

And yes im exagerrating the hypocrisy in my text to make it more obvious :) so im glad it doesnt go unnoticed.

So instead of having a free for all for a dangerous pieces of property created for lethal outcome, i think it should be more controlled... like in Canada where it's more controlled.
Because common sense isn't widespread, as you said, fast food is a big danger, but when you leave it up to the americans and corporations to make the right decision, look at how many people are dying from it!? If they can't make the right choice when it comes to feeding themselves properly, a basic need, you expect them to make the right choice with a gun?
No. Just no.
 
mmmnaked said:
350 people a year is nothing. Only bleeding heart manginas would expect legislative action based on such an insignificant statistic.

Also there was an amnesty in place for the LGR so nobody gave 2 *****. That's like saying you'd obey the speed limit if they told you they wouldn't ticket you. Lmao.
Click to expand...
350 people is still 350 people too many.

Imagine in your workplace, 50 people out of the 350 die... will it affect you? Will it affect a lot of families? Will it affect your employer?

There are big repercussions to 350 people dying, That's 350 families affected. Reducing the number of deaths, whether it be guns, whether it be drunken driving, whether it be heart disease/diabetes... is key. And that's another problem with numbers, they take the situation out of context, but a life is something more important than just a number. Most lives we should be trying to save, not saying "we can risk this many lives because the number is low"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom