The Maryland sniper

[EUR_Zaitsev]

I have still heard no rebuttle to the facts I posted that 70% of teen murders are with guns. Thus your squadering millions of young lives who are most if not all inocentand boom its gone. If you had a child and they were "accidentally" killed by a gun then youd be against unregistered guns, but it shouldnt take that for you to relize. If you wait until your child is killed to face the ugly facts your doing the same thing the US did, people have terrorists attack every week but we just talked until it happend to us. but boom to late for those 3500 who were in the towers.

[Bondo]

Bondo, you haven't even read half of what I supplied, so how would you know if the proof was convincing or not?  You didn't read shit.  You don't want the possibility of changing your mind, so you close it.  That's why you are a zelot.  As for me, if you had READ again, you would have seen that I once thought that getting rid of all hand guns would be a good thing.  I thought this back on campus as a freshman (as I said earlier).  Then, since I was arguing about it, I started to research it.  Everything that I found showed me that banning handguns would do no good whatsoever.  It would do some harm, as only criminals and law enforcement would then have them.  Yes, I actually thought it would be a good idea to look the stuff up.  Then, later, I lived in a shitty ass part of Detroit (also posted) which is where I finished my transition and actually purchased one.  I know that you can't be bothered to actually read these things, but it would make you look less stupid if you did.

Bondo, when you've gone to another State University, you can say if UCCS is as difficult.  Until then, you again don't really know what you are talking about.  As for me, I've have degrees from more then WMU, that was undergrad.  I also have an MS from Purdue and an MBA from UofM.  So, if you want to compare education, you'll lose.  Try to just get your BS with honors before you bring it up.

And the center of the acedemic world is Oxford.

Yes, I know Bucc, hence the joke that WMU was.  And I've attended both UCCS and the University of Norther Colorado so I've been to more then one...nice try though.  Great, so you went to WMU, Purdue and U of M.  And they are somehow more impressive then UCCS how exactly?

As for your claims that I'm not reading what you post, maybe instead of assuming, you should realize that even though in your narrow mind it seems that way, there are more than one way to process the information.  It seems much stronger proof to you then it really is.  Just in that paragraph you basically say, being anti-gun is a misconception of youth and that anyone smart is now pro-gun...and you think you aren't a zeolot?

I don't know if you realized but this isn't a scientific community here, it is a fucking game forum.  As such, there is no need to be an expert on every topic and make every point in the quality one would need to make it in a research paper.  There is no reason I can't make educated theories of things without being able to prove them 100%.  Until YOU get off your high-horse that you are of superior intelect and basically use the claim that the others are stupid as your tactic for arguing, then you will be seen as a moron.

[*DAMN Silent Killer]

hey should be on his high horse because hes right. bondo remember the constitution??

[Bondo]

hey should be on his high horse because hes right. bondo remember the constitution??

And how exactly does the constitution speak at all to whether it is safer to have or not have guns in a society.  All the Constitution is, is a legal document saying that in the U.S people HAVE the right to bear arms.  It isn't a proof that it is better to have guns.

Anyways, this argument isn't about gun control anymore so I will now take my leave...and unlike Bucc, I have the will power to not post in a thread after saying I'm done with it.

[Mattster]

bah Damn another Killing....God i would just like take a crobar to his head after i cut of his balls and stuck porcupine pins up his ass.

[*DAMN Silent Killer]

well than nice post matt........sheesh

[Jeb]

hey should be on his high horse because hes right. bondo remember the constitution??

Sk,
Take some time to read the 2nd amendment.
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
We have the right to form militias, back in the late 1700s militias helped the regular armed forces in the country in case of invasion, like the revolutionary war and such.
Now that its more than 200 years after that was written, would another country march into the US on horseback and take over? FUCK NO, any other country would send a couple nukes over and regulate on us.
So what the NRA wants is the ability to keep murder rates high (acidental deaths included), unsafe streets, and all to get drunk and shoot deer, oh and form a militia (something that will never be needed again).
Anyone who "suports" guns is also suporting the acidental death of children.

The same idiots who suport the NRA are also the people who believe that God made the world in 7 days and have the rebel flag plastered on their truck.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I have still heard no rebuttle to the facts I posted that 70% of teen murders are with guns. Thus your squadering millions of young lives who are most if not all inocentand boom its gone. If you had a child and they were "accidentally" killed by a gun then youd be against unregistered guns, but it shouldnt take that for you to relize.

There's no rebuttle to the fact that 66% of all murders are carried out with guns, since I posted that number for you.  I don't doubt that 70% of teen murders are with guns.  But what I do rebutt is that i'm squandering anything?  You haven't shown why those killings wouldn't have taken place without guns at all, have you?  Those are MURDERS, your own words, not accidental deaths.  I've asked you before Zaitsev, why do you think removing a tool will remove the problem?

I am very much against unregistered guns, thanks again for bothering to read my posts Zaitsev.  You know what, after you go back and read where I stand, I'll respond to you again, because it's pretty fucking obvious from your last couple posts that you havn't been.

As for Bondo, I'm done arguing with you.  You are too much of an idiot for me to bother with, like I said before.  And next time, don't tease us with that talk about leaving here and hiding in your skating forum.  Please, just go.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Jeb, you, on the other hand, I'll be glad to take the debate up with.

Take some time to read the 2nd amendment.
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
We have the right to form militias, back in the late 1700s militias helped the regular armed forces in the country in case of invasion, like the revolutionary war and such.

Actually, it was in case our own government got out of hand too.  This was written after the Revolution, it was an ammendment.  It was meant to clearify to us that the government can't disarm the people, because that is our strength to revolt as well.  We had just done it, our forefathers thought that we may have to do it again.  Also, it's not a right to form militias, it's a right or the people to keep and bear arms.  You have to read it as it was written.  It's because we wanted the "FREE STATE" to remain that way, so the people should be able to rise up to it's defense.  Back then, it meant both forigh and domestic, just like the oaths in the military are today.

Now that its more than 200 years after that was written, would another country march into the US on horseback and take over? FUCK NO, any other country would send a couple nukes over and regulate on us.

Other countries wont nuke us.  If countries were to invade America ever, it would be for the resources.  If they nuke us, they can't have the resources.  Also, you should read your history a little better, it's only been 150 years since militia's were called into action, not over 200.  

So what the NRA wants is the ability to keep murder rates high (acidental deaths included), unsafe streets, and all to get drunk and shoot deer, oh and form a militia (something that will never be needed again).

The NRA doesn't want to keep murder rates high.  They are all for public CCW, which lowers those rates Jeb.  The NRA also gives away gun locks (trigger locks) here, to help keep children from using a gun accidentally.  The NRA is also big into education and teaching gun safety.  I do not like when the NRA gets involved in other political issues, it shouldn't.  But the NRA is not about crime, it's about responsible gun use Jeb.

The same idiots who suport the NRA are also the people who believe that God made the world in 7 days and have the rebel flag plastered on their truck.

Really?  I'm an evolutionist myself.  I also hate the rebel flag, but I do drive an Explorer.  Maybe you should think about stereotypes, and how bad they are.

Anyone who "suports" guns is also suporting the acidental death of children.

Now that's just stupid and offensive.  Children die accidental deaths all the time, of many more things then guns.  How do you feel about Pot and Alcohol?  How about speeding?  How many children are killed every year from being hit by a car?  So if you speed, you are supporting those drivers that recklessly killed kids, right?  Wrong.  I don't support the assholes that don't know how to lock up their guns.  I say punish those fucks.  Supporting guns isn't supporting the accidental death of children, anymore then supporting anything else that could accidentally kill someone.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

The sniper killings is just one aspect. It shouldnt take this much (12 shootings) for the conservatives to reestablish thier position, but even if this is a gun it would reduce all other  murders not just this particular instance. If we have higher gun control the suspects would be narrowed down and also thousands of lives would be saved annualy. Weather or not gun control would stop this man is beside the point. the point is that inocent lives are taken and many more ruined by guns in general this is unrelated to the current situation although with tighter gun laws seeing a gun stands out more nad MAYBE could prevent things like this from occuring.

[Deadeye]

let me just start by saying, bondo, you are a moron.  because only a moron would try to argue what is and isn't logical with someone that has a degree in philosophy.  next you'll argue with a math teacher that 1+1 doesn't equal 2.  one last thing bondo, what does uccs have that's considered the best program in the nation?  because wmu has what is considered the best program in the nation in two fields.  you should look these things up before you comment.  you really should.

The sniper killings is just one aspect. It shouldnt take this much (12 shootings) for the conservatives to reestablish thier position, but even if this is a gun it would reduce all other  murders not just this particular instance. If we have higher gun control the suspects would be narrowed down and also thousands of lives would be saved annualy. Weather or not gun control would stop this man is beside the point. the point is that inocent lives are taken and many more ruined by guns in general this is unrelated to the current situation although with tighter gun laws seeing a gun stands out more nad MAYBE could prevent things like this from occuring.

zaitsev, you've never said why reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of murders.  what makes you think that?

as for guns standing out, it wouldn't make a bit of difference in this sniper case, because that varment gun he is using would stand out anywhere (.223 caliber rifle with a huge barrel and a scope).  

innocent lives are ruined by people, not by guns.  guns aren't good or evil.  drugs, cars, alcohol, knives, none of these things are good or evil.  people are good or evil.  want to make it a safer place, change people.  millions of people kill themselves with tobacco every year.  that doesn't make tobacco the problem.  it costs us millions in health care.  it's still not the problem.  the problem is people chose to use it.  education is the best tool for changing things.  but if someone wants to use tobacco, that's fine with me.  if someone wants to use drugs, that's fine with me.  if someone wants to have a gun, that's fine with me.  when they abuse it, and hurt or kill someone else, that's when it's not fine.  those are the ones that need to be changed.  as for me, i'll sit here with my guns, smoking this fat cigar, and drinking this beer, thanking the universe that i live in america, where this liberty is what the country was built upon.

[Jeb]

some facts i pulled off the internet,
"In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day" (an estimated 20,000 people will die from aids, and people care about stoping those deaths)
Per 100,000 people
4 people die because of firearms in the US
.12 people die because of firearms in the UK where they have harse gun control laws

"The United States has the least restricted access to firearms of any democracy in the world. Consequently, the U.S. also has the highest firearm murder rate of any democracy in the world."

" During the Vietnam War, 58,000 American soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen were killed. During that same time period, more than 70,000 people in the United States were killed by firearms - mostly handguns. "

"According to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend than to kill an intruder."

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimates that handguns are involved in 71 percent of all armed crimes and 60 percent of all suicides."


We have guns to form militias and defend our country.
and there are 2 reasons to have a well regulated militia, security of a free state, and the right for people to keep and bear arms

and in order to keep guns we will be keeping more violent crime, and more acidental deaths. I think that stricter gun control laws would be a great thing for this country and more importantly the people of the country.
jeb
ps. i can't help but remeber what one of my dad law firm partners friends told me "never argue Gun control or the existance of god" and i also favor gun control, and atheism  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

some facts i pulled off the internet,
"In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day" (an estimated 20,000 people will die from aids, and people care about stoping those deaths)
Per 100,000 people
4 people die because of firearms in the US
.12 people die because of firearms in the UK where they have harse gun control laws

Jeb, do me a favor and go back and read the posts that were already here.  We have already posted figures for 2000, by the DOJ (Department of Justice).

The part that nobody here seems to be able to answer is, how will banning guns stop violence?  There was violence before guns, there is violence after.

For your UK example, we've already discussed that too.  The violent crimes went up AFTER their stricter laws.  That was UP.  Same with Canada.  You have to look at cause and effect.  Gun bans don't end violence.  

Also, you can look at many other countries, that have much stricter gun control laws then the USA, and see a much higher homicide rate.  

So please.  Go back, read what's been written so we don't cover the same ground again.

[Jeb]

guns don't cause violence, its a easier means of it. The maryland sniper had to wait 5 days to buy his gun legaly. That shouldn't happen. complete fingerprint registration would help the investigation with the sniper, but that is the first step in taking away guns acording to gun freaks.

20,000 deaths per year is a steap price to pay in order to keep a gun. all so you can go hunting, or better yet protect your home (while the gun is locked away in a inacessable place).

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

guns don't cause violence, its a easier means of it. The maryland sniper had to wait 5 days to buy his gun legaly. That shouldn't happen. complete fingerprint registration would help the investigation with the sniper, but that is the first step in taking away guns acording to gun freaks.

20,000 deaths per year is a steap price to pay in order to keep a gun. all so you can go hunting, or better yet protect your home (while the gun is locked away in a inacessable place).

Jeb, the odds are that this gun wasn't bought legally by the shooter because he/she wouldnt want anything to be traced back to him/her if the gun was somehow recovered. This gun was probably stolen or was bought on the black market, the latter being most likely.

If it was bought legally, you sure as hell could bet that he would have been caught - I guarantee you they ran through their database of all guns that could fire that type of ammo and didn't find the guy they were looking for.[/quote]

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Guns do cause violence because when your in a rage chances are you will be over it by the time you get another weapon but a gun is so quick and easy to use and so you dfo something before you think about it and your thrown in jail. You say guns wouldnt kill without people but I say less people would kill without guns. Not to ban guns totally maybe but rather fingerprint all byers wait 30 days write down all gun facts, make model, date bought, owner, house of owner, prints of owner. This system would save thousands of lives. As Jeb pointed out The US has the least gun laws and we are 33 times more likely to kill people with guns then greatbritain

[Jeb]

everyone is pretty suborn when it comes to opinions in this issue, so arguing over gun control seems pretty pointless.
Just rest asured knowing that the police have surounded a white van at a gas station which is aparently the sniper, and the police have him. (acording to msnbc)
they aren't saying to much yet, but its him aparently.

[+-KoS-+ Gorf]

all i have to say is WOW.  some people (cough,bucc, bondo, cough) need to spend a little bit more time away from the keyboard....  

maybe go play squash or tennis?  or throw a football around?  or go down to the green and play with the field hockey girls and break one of their sticks in half trying to hit the ball...rofl (don't ask)

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Jeb and Zaitsev, what would work better is if you guys did more real research on what you are suggesting, and what is already in effect, and why some things would and wouldn't work.

Guns do cause violence because when your in a rage chances are you will be over it by the time you get another weapon but a gun is so quick and easy to use and so you dfo something before you think about it and your thrown in jail.  

Yeah, killing with a knife, baseball bat or car takes a long, long time, doesn't it?  Don't forget, most of the killings are by people that have the weapon illegally in the first place.  You guys always seem to ignore that.

Not to ban guns totally maybe but rather fingerprint all byers wait 30 days write down all gun facts, make model, date bought, owner, house of owner, prints of owner.

Gee, and except for that 30 day wait, the state has all that info on me.  Glad you are up on what that laws actually are, and what you are talking about.  The state has my prints, has my addres, the gun info, etc etc etc.

And Jeb, like was posted long ago.  It take about 5 seconds for me to open my gun safe.  How is that unaccessable?  Also, I'm all for the electronic gun safetys that exist today, that let nobody but the owner fire the gun.  

You guys act like out of all the legal guns out there, they are all, or a good percentage of them, are used to kill people.  That's just nonesense.  You can throw out a figure like "a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to shoot a friend or family member", but what actual percentage of legal guns does that happen with?

Really guys, educate yourselves on this.  It's really disappointing to see you arguing over laws when you don't even know what laws exist.  And you Americans, who know that most of the laws are STATE laws, act like it's all a national thing.  Guns aren't good or bad, it's all in how they are used.  Change the way people use them, change the violence in our country.  Banning guns does no good.

Nobody has shown that less guns equals less violence.  In the countries where guns have been banned, or all but banned, violence has risen, not gone down.  

Make stiffer laws against criminals, like they do in the UK, don't let them get away with it.  There are plenty of things we can learn from other countries.  One of which is that the gun bans haven't worked (at least not yet).

Also, I keep pointing out, and nobody has argued about it, that if guns were banned that would only stop the legal owners.  Since most crimes are comitted with illegal guns, this won't stop them, it will only make it worse.  Bondo said smuggling isn't an issue, and it's not a BIG issue today, but if guns were banned, gun smuggling would be as big or bigger then bootleg alcohol was in the 20's, and pot and other drugs are today.  There is just no way to stop them all, or don't you think it would have happened with these other illegal things?  So all you would be doing is disarming the people that actually deserve the right to have and bear them.

The most important thing is that gun laws need to be enforced.  Today, so many gun laws are not.  That's where you should turn your anger.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

This post is officialy over and gun control needs to be stepped up before you have these types of results from legal guns, which should be an oxymoron.