see4
Well-Known Member
Just as contentious as guns are now.
Guns & Gun Violence
- Thread starter see4
- Start date
Just as contentious as guns are now.
Lord Kanti
Well-Known Member
School shooting in 1922
I've read several of your posts.... You say that you think, so here's a riddle for you: Where were all the mass shootings after 1947? Guns have been around since before 1776. I won't argue about muskets, but in 1947 significant gains were made in firearm manufacturing. Why didn't US streets run red with blood when the finest killing machine ever invented exploded onto world markets? Why are "mass shootings" now a thing of this generation?
see4
Well-Known Member
School shooting in 1922
I've read several of your posts.... You say that you think, so here's a riddle for you: Where were all the mass shootings after 1947? Guns have been around since before 1776. I won't argue about muskets, but in 1947 significant gains were made in firearm manufacturing. Why didn't US streets run red with blood when the finest killing machine ever invented exploded onto world markets? Why are "mass shootings" now a thing of this generation?
The dude second on the left is holding it all wrong. The girl on the far right has a wicked overbite, but I'd still throw it in her, Refer Madness style. Nawwww Seeee.
Guns were invented by .... Not God, Not George Washington. God damnit, the friggin Chinese. They fucking come up with everything! Those bastards! Oh and gunpowder wouldnt-cha-know-it.
Guns have been used to mass kill since it's invention. It was a war invention after all. But oddly, not gunpowder.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Thank you for clarifying that.
It is imprecise to say I believe in guns. It is more precise that I believe that the codified right to own them belongs first to the citizen, and only second to the organs of the state. WE tell THEM what it is, and how far it goes.
The dismissal of this axiom by the engineers of today's truth is something I find morally pathological.
see4
Well-Known Member
You know what I meant. I gave you the cliffnotes clarification good sir.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
Shit if i won the lotto i say fuck guns i get me a real crowd stopper 
ultimate protection lol
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Jet/1986/Mikoyan/MIG+29/1740438.html
ultimate protection lolhttp://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Jet/1986/Mikoyan/MIG+29/1740438.html
see4
Well-Known Member
Fair enough.
re present idea: I agree from the perspective of the citizen that it is our right to bare arms, because I like to go sleeveless. But I disagree, that it is only second that the state, government, have those same rights. Keeping in mind that GW had 1:10000th the military we have today. He had no choice but to go door to door, selling his wares and his Tec-9s. At the same time, I'm on board with us telling the proverbial "them" what, and who can has. Which I suppose is why we have elected officials, that are supposed to represent "us" as a whole.
Who do you suppose are the engineers of today's truth? Shall we go on a well hung limb and assert yellow press the culprit?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
[/quote][/QUOTE]
OK, so deeper background checks that don't infringe on civil rights are OK...how is this different from simply increasing funding and staffing to enforce current laws? The anti gun control lobby has a death grip on the funding for these background checks. Pro gun activists get to have it both ways -- proclaim the need to get guns out of the hands of "crazies" yet their paid for legislators voting against funds to pay for said checks.
I'm sure you've already seen the reports showing that the rate of mass murder in the US are not even close to economically and socially similar countries. If those don't convince you, what will? Can you give me an example of a report that you have read and rejected? Also, can you give me an example of "scientific criteria" on any subject that you find convincing? The reason I ask is that I've found when the general public reject "science" they don't really understand it limitations. For example, there is confusion regarding the difference between certainty and a scientific finding. By the way, data and peer reviewed papers are two different things.
I don't know why you started raving about gun ownership not being the same as gun violence. Your statement about this and demagoguery is so confused it gives me a headache but what I said had nothing to do with your ravings. I said that I think that requiring everybody to carry a gun would increase gun violence. I have my reasons for this. If you want me to explain, I'll be glad to. If you want to put words in my mouth I'll be glad to refute you.
meristem
Well-Known Member
Halt ALL gun sales in the US for EVERY type of gun with NO exceptions and there would still be more than enough assault weapons in the hands of crazy idiots to keep the slaughter going for generations. Even if we made it illegal for anyone in the US to own or have a gun in their possession, I seriously doubt that criminals, gangs, and other assorted douchebags would feel the least bit compelled to comply. But at least home invaders wouldn't have to worry as much about getting shot by some frightened homeowner.
We're about 100 years too late in trying to manage the stockpile of citizen weaponry. And we can't even discuss the issue of armed non-citizens and even terrorists running around shooting up the place with fully automatic assault weaponry. Can't go there - might offend someone. But since "gun control" is mostly political claptrap, I couldn't care less what the politicians do or don't do since it's almost certain that they'll end up doing whatever is the most counterproductive to their stated goals regardless. But I'm fully confident that whatever they do or don't do, it will be trumpeted as a grand success - regardless of reality.
We're about 100 years too late in trying to manage the stockpile of citizen weaponry. And we can't even discuss the issue of armed non-citizens and even terrorists running around shooting up the place with fully automatic assault weaponry. Can't go there - might offend someone. But since "gun control" is mostly political claptrap, I couldn't care less what the politicians do or don't do since it's almost certain that they'll end up doing whatever is the most counterproductive to their stated goals regardless. But I'm fully confident that whatever they do or don't do, it will be trumpeted as a grand success - regardless of reality.
ZaraBeth420
Well-Known Member
From Googling "gun manufacturing 1947" and reading the first hit, I found that the AK47 was first made in 1947. Is this the killing machine you spoke about?
I don't know why mass shootings didnt happen back then like they do now. Guns were around then. So were people. But I have no idea why some people today use guns to kill people in public. Why do you think this happens? More mental illness today than in the past?
Edited to add this:
Maybe every generation has about the same percent of idiots who would do these shootings, and each generation has more people than the last. so the number of people who would do mass shootings increases every generation. I don't know. Just a guess.
Last edited:
BarnBuster
Virtually Unknown Member
woody333333
Well-Known Member
I love my ak..... It's family
Been eye balling the rra lar47
Been eye balling the rra lar47
woody333333
Well-Known Member
And being prepared i shall be
Guns dont go on the floor
budlover13
King Tut
I believe more mental illness and anti-psychotic/anti-depression drugs can't have helped.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Hey! Haven't seen you in these parts for a while.
Even though I didn't always agree with you, I liked your reasonable approach.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The military is people, not weapons. GW had about the same military capacity as we do today. The only difference is tech.
As for the engineers of truth, I think the press is a puppet's puppet. I think the fix is in much deeper.
Similar threads
