Let's put This To Bed. The Five Worst Shootings Ever Were Not Done By Americans

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Any man who attacks me deserves no less.

Ladies and Gentlemen: The reason guns should not be easily available to private citizens is displayed above.

Seriously. The laws are fairly clear on this. You must be in fear for your life in order to take a life. How far does your logic extend? If someone throws a punch do you kill them? If someone pushes you do you kill them? If they look like they're about to attack you do you kill them?

I'm glad I live in a country where pistols are all but unavailable and all other firearms are strongly controlled. It means I don't have to worry when I trip and knock someone over that they'll shoot me.

Originally posted by Kryties
And therein lies the reason America needs gun control.

I do agree that we need nationalized gun control. It doesn't help when you control guns in one area but can drive across state lines and the rules change......

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Kryties
And therein lies the reason America needs gun control.

I do agree that we need nationalized gun control. It doesn't help when you control guns in one area but can drive across state lines and the rules change......

OMG.....

Seriously? You've argued the whole time in this thread about not banning guns for any reason now you backtrack and claim you do agree with a national approach on guns? WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG FFS.

It's like bashing my head against a brick wall....

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

So you shoot unarmed people instead?

When did I state they were "unarmed"? The boot in my head made him "armed" with a deadly weapon. Not to mention the knife in his hand.

Also, most of the time there would be no need to shoot someone. They see you are armed and a threat to them and leave you alone. Most of the time.

You are starting to sound like a nutcase mate. One of those nutcases this thread is about.....

If wanting to protect myself from other nutcases makes me a nutcase....then so be it.

Originally posted by exponent
Seriously. The laws are fairly clear on this. You must be in fear for your life in order to take a life. How far does your logic extend? If someone throws a punch do you kill them? If someone pushes you do you kill them? If they look like they're about to attack you do you kill them?

Indeed. At what point does a man kicking you in the head meaning to do permanant damage calls for deadly force? I don't know, but I wish I hadn't had to find out.

I'm glad I live in a country where pistols are all but unavailable and all other firearms are strongly controlled. It means I don't have to worry when I trip and knock someone over that they'll shoot me.

Paranoid much?

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

So you shoot unarmed people instead?

When did I state they were "unarmed"? The boot in my head made him "armed" with a deadly weapon. Not to mention the knife in his hand.

Did they have guns? NO. Therefore you would shoot an unarmed person.

You're scared of boots? Ever heard of kicking back? FFS.

If wanting to protect myself from other nutcases makes me a nutcase....then so be it.

Congratulations on joining the ranks of potential nutjobs with guns. The list is a very long one btw...

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Paranoid much?

This coming from you is a complete joke at the very least. You're whole argument hinges on paranoia of other people with guns or paranoia of tyrannous governments yet you dare to call others paranoid?

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Originally posted by Kryties
You've argued the whole time in this thread about not banning guns for any reason

Please show me where I stated this.

All I stated was that I want the ability to defend myself. Not all guns being freely available to anyone who wants to shoot people.

Please stop with the hysterics and calm the F down and maybe we can have a conversation. But, so far, you have done nothing but place words in my mouth and twist anything I say.

As far as I am concerned our conversation is finished. Good by and I hope you well.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Indeed. At what point does a man kicking you in the head meaning to do permanant damage calls for deadly force? I don't know, but I wish I hadn't had to find out.

If he intended to kill you, what do you think would have happened if he had a gun?

Paranoid much?

We're in a thread discussing the slaughter of around 20 children. I don't think paranoia is particularly unjustified in this regard.

For example, in the UK, the police discharged their firearms a total of 3 times last year, in a country of 60 million. In case you think that was a freak occurrence, the number of incidents has been declining since 2002/3 when there were 10.

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Kryties
And therein lies the reason America needs gun control.

I do agree that we need nationalized gun control. It doesn't help when you control guns in one area but can drive across state lines and the rules change......

We already have a national gun law. It is called the second amendment.

It's interesting that you're bringing light to this OP but personally I don't think it's a country-competition despite Americans freaking out about the 2nd amendment and staged events (which sometimes just doesn't apply)

The anger (from people) and the madness (from these unprovoked wars) seem to go hand in hand. I often wonder how people would react if there were no wars. Would we be a gentler race by default due to our environment?

But as long as our corrupt government promote, sponsor and support these wars then--- this level of hatred in movies, video games and music will be condoned and glamorized. It's fascinating our government actually hands out awards for killing other Humans.

This government is not leading my example. It's leading by being the biggest pack of hypocrites--- possibly on the entire planet.

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Kryties
You've argued the whole time in this thread about not banning guns for any reason

Please show me where I stated this.

All I stated was that I want the ability to defend myself. Not all guns being freely available to anyone who wants to shoot people.

Please stop with the hysterics and calm the F down and maybe we can have a conversation. But, so far, you have done nothing but place words in my mouth and twist anything I say.

As far as I am concerned our conversation is finished. Good by and I hope you well.

You really need to go back and read your posts in this thread mate - they speak a very different story to what you are trying to claim now.

Originally posted by Kryties
You really need to go back and read your posts in this thread mate - they speak a very different story to what you are trying to claim now.

Instead of placing words in my mouth.....show us.

reply to post by HandyDandy


That's more effort than I would like to put into you now mate. Anyone with two eyes can see I am right and you are delusional. You are tripping over yourself to try and backtrack now and failing dismally.

To anyone reading this: Just click the "Member" dropdown under his name and choose "Posts in Thread".

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
We already have a national gun law. It is called the second amendment.

It's about 200 years out of date. Nobody has yet given a straight answer to the question of how exactly a bunch of semi or fully automatic weapons are going to protect you. If you don't have the support of the army then the best you can hope for is to occasionally loot supply depots and operate as an insurgency. If you do have the support of the army then you don't need your weapons.

Either way it seems you're reliant on the weapons of your army, rather than personal weapons. It's not like everyone here is advocating banning all guns either. In the UK I'm permitted to own a shotgun with appropriate security and background checking. If the worst came to worst I would be able to use that shotgun to defend myself. A pistol would be much less useful in that situation.

There are lots of good arguments for strong gun control, why are you acting as if the second amendment is an infallible argument. Do you agree with all laws that were in place at the time?

reply to post by Kryties


Please do. because I have gone through all posts in this thread and nowhere did I state anything you are stating I said. If you continue to put words in my mouth and twist everything i say you WILL be reported on. I have said no such thing. It is now your time to "put up or shut up" as you would say.

reply to post by HandyDandy


Nope I'm not playing your silly little game. It's not hard to read through this thread and find the evidence that you fully support guns being freely available by your use of insults and retorts aimed at those of us who wish that the issue be looked at.

You then backtracked and now you're trying to claim that you never meant this at all. That is typical troll behaviour and I, for one, will no longer be a party to it.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
We already have a national gun law. It is called the second amendment.

It's about 200 years out of date. Nobody has yet given a straight answer to the question of how exactly a bunch of semi or fully automatic weapons are going to protect you. If you don't have the support of the army then the best you can hope for is to occasionally loot supply depots and operate as an insurgency. If you do have the support of the army then you don't need your weapons.

I'll answer. I don't think we should have assault weapons.

It's not like everyone here is advocating banning all guns either.

If that's the case then we can agree.

In the UK I'm permitted to own a shotgun with appropriate security and background checking. If the worst came to worst I would be able to use that shotgun to defend myself.

That is something I was unaware of. Good to know.

Originally posted by exponent


There are lots of good arguments for strong gun control, why are you acting as if the second amendment is an infallible argument.

Many of those arguments were made by men of renown like hitler, lenin, stalin, mao, pol pot and others. There is no argument you could make that would convince me to put my personal safety into the hands of the government.

Originally posted by exponent Do you agree with all laws that were in place at the time?

Some yes, some no. The Bill of Rights though, I agree with 100%.

reply to post by Kryties


The trool is the one who places words in others mouths and then back tracks and won't prove his point. I NEVER stated that I wanted guns freely available to anyone who wants them. My first post about Australia got your little panties in a wad and from there you got on my case and twisted every word I had to say. If anyone is the trool it is the guy that you see in the mirror.