Virginia Tech shooting

[Devion]

When someone sells their gun, it is 2nd hand and thus used. People sell used guns at gun shows. People also sell it to their neighbors, who are PEOPLE THEY TRUST. They aren't idiots, and they know if they sell a gun to someone who isn't trustworthy and they use that gun in a crime, the cops are going to check the gun's registration and it's going to lead back to them, the original owner. Duh.

Are you just naive? When someone sell(Illegally) you a gun, lets say your neighbours, then you are not registered as a gun owner.

Again, complaints and worries of the English.

Get real, Brits...?

You were the one implying that Big Brother was at hand. Now dont try to evade it with, "the English only think/say so".

That statement proves how little you know about this country.

Actually I was trying to provoke you to say that you would need it for ciminal activity.(Defending)

It's called setting a trap.

Try again.

 

[Zeonix]

1) Then you aren't a gun owner looking to sell your used gun to a friend. You're a criminal helping out other criminals. If you're just some guy who wants to sell your gun, your name is registered to the gun. You're only proving that criminals will obtain guns regardless of the legality of what they're doing.

2) Big Brother is at hand. How do I know? Ask the Brits. That's where I get most of my information from since I don't trust CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc etc.

3) Your trap was poorly placed, since it only served to prove your ignorance of American society.

He sent a pm begging me to post.

GAME OVER

Insert 25 cents.

 

[dan_esf_fanatic]

The founding fathers believed we have the right to bear arms, and that's good enough for me.

LOL!!!!! Man, I'm gonna insult a whole bunch of people now, but who even cares what they said? They lived 300 years ago (maybe less, but forgive my arrogance about something that is totally unimportant) and times have changed since then. Did they have AK's in the 18th century? I think not. I for one think that all guns should be banned. They should only be allowed for military purposes and not allowed to be taken home by soldiers or whoever is using them in the millitary. Also by the police. Anyone who uses it for other purposes then for police and military work, he loses his job and gets punished by law. That's how it should be, and if that was the way things were done such tragedies like this one won't happen. I remember my dad was telling me that before only security guards and military had guns. Now every other shmuck in the neighborhood has a revolver. Back then, it's a known fact that crime in the now Former Yugoslavia had been more than ten times less frequent than it is now. That might be because of the lack of technology back then, but that's only a reason to further security measures. That's all I have to say.

 

[Epedemic_Optikz]

I'd feel a lot safer on the streets if I knew that nobody has a gun.. I mean, how on earth can you feel safe if you know that everyone you see on the street, has a gun? How can you feel safe if you know that some kid can jump around the corner and pop one in your face.. Even if you have a gun yourself, it'll be useless since you just got popped in the face without any warning..

And yes, somebody that wants to kill, will kill, but as I said before, that doesn't mean you have to put the cat with the milk and let everyone carry around guns..



God, I really don't understand the mindflow of some/most Americans :/

Living in america, even if there were banned gun laws, criminals would still have guns so now you have bad people with guns and not good + bad people with guns, which one is worse? I feel alot more safe with good people and bad people around me with guns besides just bad people.

Even if someone did pop me in the face, what reason would he/she have? and if someone did pop me in the face, i'm sure everyone around will react and kill that person in fear for their lives that the criminal who killed me were going to try to get to them next.

People who dont live in America dont really know what it's like here, no opinion of a person from another region is greater than the other. You must know it to judge it.

 

[Zeonix]

LOL!!!!! Man, I'm gonna insult a whole bunch of people now, but who even cares what they said? They lived 300 years ago (maybe less, but forgive my arrogance about something that is totally unimportant) and times have changed since then. Did they have AK's in the 18th century? I think not. I for one think that all guns should be banned. They should only be allowed for military purposes and not allowed to be taken home by soldiers or whoever is using them in the millitary. Also by the police. Anyone who uses it for other purposes then for police and military work, he loses his job and gets punished by law. That's how it should be, and if that was the way things were done such tragedies like this one won't happen. I remember my dad was telling me that before only security guards and military had guns. Now every other shmuck in the neighborhood has a revolver. Back then, it's a known fact that crime in the now Former Yugoslavia had been more than ten times less frequent than it is now. That might be because of the lack of technology back then, but that's only a reason to further security measures. That's all I have to say.

Says the guy who defended a person responsible for genocide. Had the people being slaughtered been armed, I'm not so sure it would have turned out the way it did.

 

[dan_esf_fanatic]

Says the guy who defended a person responsible for genocide. Had the people being slaughtered been armed, I'm not so sure it would have turned out the way it did.

So you're saying we should arm 15 year-olds with guns, including delinquents who have plenty reason to kill someone that is pissing them off? Then give me a gun. I'm 15. And as for genocide, you're one to talk, since Americans have killed more Iraqis, Afghanistanis AND Serbs then we could've possibly killed Bosnians or whatever. But hey, it was an accident, so it's okay then? Don't make me laugh.

 

[Devion]

1) Then you aren't a gun owner looking to sell your used gun to a friend. You're a criminal helping out other criminals. If you're just some guy who wants to sell your gun, your name is registered to the gun. You're only proving that criminals will obtain guns regardless of the legality of what they're doing.

The point is if you thought it through, that you wouldnt have guns to sell in a illegal way if you could obtain them legal.

2) Big Brother is at hand. How do I know? Ask the Brits. That's where I get most of my information from since I don't trust CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc etc.

Strange, I hear different sounds. Besides that, Big Brother is coming to Britain in London, in the toll way area!

3) Your trap was poorly placed, since it only served to prove your ignorance of American society.

Why wont you say why is was ignorant of me to post the orginal reply? Scared of the illogic of the reply you would have to make?

He sent a pm begging me to post.

GAME OVER

Insert 25 cents.

Insert 5 cents.....

 

[Zeonix]

So you're saying we should arm 15 year-olds with guns, including delinquents who have plenty reason to kill someone that is pissing them off? Then give me a gun. I'm 15. And as for genocide, you're one to talk, since Americans have killed more Iraqis, Afghanistanis AND Serbs then we could've possibly killed Bosnians or whatever. But hey, it was an accident, so it's okay then? Don't make me laugh.

If the 15 year olds have to choose between being slaughtered and fighting back, I'd rather they fight back. The difference between iraq and bosnia is most americans dont really know what's going on in Iraq. You, on the other hand, know exactly what happened, and still approve of it.

@ Devion: 1) You can obtain those guns legally. But it's more expensive to buy a brand new gun rather than a second-hand gun. The more you post, the less it seems you actually know about us.

2) Make fun of the Brits all you like. I'm not there. It isn't my problem. Yet.

3) That sentence made absolutely no sense (not to say I expect more of you). You haven't been to D.C. You don't know what it's like there. You wouldn't know how to survive there.

4) 5 isn't 25. Your 5 nickel has been refunded. Insert 25 cents.

 

[sub]

Dan did bring up a good point before. Would the founding fathers have ok'd guns if they had ak's and mp5's and the like back then? I mean, they had charleville's and brown bess's which could fire like three shots per minute at best, and thats with a long reload time after each shot.

Anyways, guns should be allowed imo, we just need much stricter laws on the subject. We atleast need to require people to go through a thorough psychological examination by a doctor to make sure ones mental health is good.

 

[Devion]

@ Devion: 1) You can obtain those guns legally. But it's more expensive to buy a brand new gun rather than a second-hand gun. The more you post, the less it seems you actually know about us.

It's nice to see that you are trying to make the subject, Devion's ignorance, by ad hominem attacks.

2) Make fun of the Brits all you like. I'm not there. It isn't my problem. Yet.

Do you have a problem with reading?

3) That sentence made absolutely no sense (not to say I expect more of you). You haven't been to D.C. You don't know what it's like there. You wouldn't know how to survive there.

What's the threat, tell me that Zeonix. Because you know as well as I do, that the problem is all bound to your great gun law.

4) 5 isn't 25. Your 5 nickel has been refunded. Insert 25 cents.

Inserts 5 cent.

 

[Zeonix]

It's nice to see that you are trying to make the subject, Devion's ignorance, by ad hominem attacks.

You're doing that quite capably all by your lonesome.

Do you have a problem with reading?

No, but you obviously do. Have I said that there shouldn't be cameras in the "toll way area"? No, you haven't. But I did link you to certain things that worry people, like putting cameras all over residential areas. Or did you not bother reading that part?

What's the threat, tell me that Zeonix. Because you know as well as I do, that the problem is all bound to your great gun law.

The threat is the people. D.C. is the bronx, harlem, and LA combined. When you live in a city where you know your house is going to get robbed once you leave your house (or even before), guns become sort of a non-issue because there are larger problems to deal with. Blame everything on guns if you want, but guns are not the problem.

Inserts 5 cent.

Drops a calculator by your feet.

1 2 skip a few, ninety-nine, one hundred.

 

[Sicron]

I must say, I do find it ironic how only the Americans on this board are for guns. And nearly every non-American is against guns. Please do explain me why we can survive without weapons all around us, and you MUST have them.

I could agree somewhat with people living near grizzly bears having weapons for personal security against the bears. But in a city, there should have never been guns in the first place. There might be a ghetto yes, and it's dangerous, but they can just as easily buy those guns in the shop as you can. It's just that everyone can get guns in America far too easy, and the most gun shot kills have been in America (or America is second, and Mexico first...I'm not too sure about that. The point is, America is high in the list)

And Sub, would stricter laws help? I mean, if I had a brother was passed that exam, I could still take his weapon and start spraying it on a school if I lived in America. These examination may stop some people, but it will still not significantly lower the chance of people being able to get their hands on guns.

 

[dan_esf_fanatic]

If the 15 year olds have to choose between being slaughtered and fighting back, I'd rather they fight back. The difference between iraq and bosnia is most americans dont really know what's going on in Iraq. You, on the other hand, know exactly what happened, and still approve of it.

OK, first off there was no genocide. It was announced a while ago that the UN stated Serbia wasn't guilty of genocide. BUT, they only announced it after Milosevic died. Hmm, wonder why? That's right, because they were afraid of him. Afraid that if he wasn't sent to Hague, he would've united the former Yugoslavian states once again. Which would be bad for America, since Yugoslavia was a socialistic country while all the western countries were using capitalism as their system, and socialism worked just fine for us, even better than capitalism in some cases. It's the same thing they're doing to Vojislav Seselj in the Hague right now, waiting for him to die there. They don't have ONE BIT of proof he is guilty for anything, just as they had no proof for Milosevic's trial. But when he died, they admitted that there was no genocide. That's generally what the Hague does, gather people who pose a threat to them and let them rot in their prison without one bit of proof. I know this because I have watched every bit of Milosevic's trials, which is obviously something you didn't do, because if you did you'd know that what you're talking about is complete bull****. I've also watched each of Seselj's trials, and it's the same thing. They're all assuming something without one bit of solid proof. But still they keep them there to rot, and even made him go on a hunger strike. Thank God he's alive, because except Milosevic he's the only politician I acknowledge and admire. The others are ****ing *******s and american spies. Remember this because one day you'll realize what I said was right. And yes, I know that 99% of this forum doesn't know what the **** I'm talking about, but I don't give a damn.

And as for the guns, let me repeat myself. Do you really think that the teens wouldn't misuse their right to carry guns around? Threatening people, taking cash from them? Killing stray dogs, shooting into the air to gain attention? They might even shoot each other if they get too drunk. I'm sorry, but this idea to give everyone guns is the biggest bull**** I've ever heard.

EDIT: I've just thought of something. Why not give people those guns with rubber bullets? They aren't lethal, and CAN bring down a person, without killing him. And make them incompatible with any other bullet type. Then again, you might not know what I'm talking about, since I haven't heard that they're used anywhere else but here. But this is something I'm completely uncertain of. There may be rubber bullet guns in America, and there may not be. But even if you don't have them, you can import or something. It's not like they're harmless, but at least they can't kill. They can bust your balls if you hit them with five or six bullets, but then you can live without fapping. That life would suck tho.

 

[Devion]

No, but you obviously do. Have I said that there shouldn't be cameras in the "toll way area"? No, you haven't. But I did link you to certain things that worry people, like putting cameras all over residential areas. Or did you not bother reading that part?

As I said before, MOST camera are in the toll area.

Or did you not bother reading that part?

The threat is the people. D.C. is the bronx, harlem, and LA combined. When you live in a city where you know your house is going to get robbed once you leave your house (or even before), guns become sort of a non-issue because there are larger problems to deal with. Blame everything on guns if you want, but guns are not the problem.

Dum-dum!

That's my whole point. You wouldnt have this situation if guns werent as easily aqcuired.

Drops a calculator by your feet.

Drops logic by your feet.

In other words, you are not worth the 25 cents.

 

[sub]

I must say, I do find it ironic how only the Americans on this board are for guns. And nearly every non-American is against guns. Please do explain me why we can survive without weapons all around us, and you MUST have them.

I could agree somewhat with people living near grizzly bears having weapons for personal security against the bears. But in a city, there should have never been guns in the first place. There might be a ghetto yes, and it's dangerous, but they can just as easily buy those guns in the shop as you can. It's just that everyone can get guns in America far too easy, and the most gun shot kills have been in America (or America is second, and Mexico first...I'm not too sure about that. The point is, America is high in the list)

And Sub, would stricter laws help? I mean, if I had a brother was passed that exam, I could still take his weapon and start spraying it on a school if I lived in America. These examination may stop some people, but it will still not significantly lower the chance of people being able to get their hands on guns.

I don't see any harm in stricter laws. It's better than nothing if it stops even one death, you know.

 

[Sicron]

I agree, it's better than nothing. But stopping it all would be much better. And I know it can be done, if 90% of the Americans would come to senses and throw away their weapons.

 

[Phobius]

He paid $571 for a 9 mm Glock 19 pistol just over a month ago but not sure how he obtained the Walther .22-caliber semi-automatic.

Basically US States need to re look at their gun laws and what can help prevent the wrong people from buying guns over the counter.

 

[Ness]

You guys have an obese police force. There were two things running through my mind when i heard about the event and saw parts of the event on the evening news. "What the hell" and "who the hell are they going to save". And 2 hours, and they did nothing. Like said on the BBC News, how did the guy manage to sneak the firearms past security? And why do American's describe every person deemed a criminal as "troubled"?

 

[dan_esf_fanatic]

You guys have an obese police force.

Uhh....yeah, they do. But how about next time you just say fat, that way I won't have to go to wikipedia to understand what you meant -.-
xD

 

[Grega]

He paid $571 for a 9 mm Glock 19 pistol just over a month ago but not sure how he obtained the Walther .22-caliber semi-automatic.

Basically US States need to re look at their gun laws and what can help prevent the wrong people from buying guns over the counter.

How about stop making new ones and just start destroying the ones that exist. Screw museum artifacts from WW1,2 aswel. Just destroy them all. If every country acted like that it would be a lot better. But NO the whoe stupid humanity goes by the rule "New weapons, stronger weapons and more damage will save us in case of a WHAT IF"


There would be no what ifs if humanity wasnt as stupid as it is. Hell i dare say every fly is smarter than humans. So what we can build stuff. Big deal in the end we just kill ourselves off. You dont see flys doing that.

Beeing religious i ask myself a lot of rimes "Was god drunk or stoned when he decided to give us free will?" cause so far it only brought suffering and more suffering.