Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

For what it is worth, Falconboy is not slow; he is fucking thirteen.

Also, I'm just as angry and bitter as I always was. Just don't care to hide it anymore.

Meowth's Sandy (Hook) Vagina

Guns must always be controlled, if not almost forbidden for common civilians.

My point is easier: I'm a mediterranean guy (Spanish) and people in my zone are very hot-tempered. Really easilly you will find fights for any reason: A driving problem, a disco, an offense...

What happens when nerves turn out to a fight: there are those options:

- Neither part has a lethal weapon. Probably they will share some punches and kicks, but nothing too dangerous.
- One/more has a close combat lethal weapon (a knife): someone will end stabbed probably.
- Someone has a gun: probably someone will end dead or heavily injured.

I say not to weapons. Never had one, never needed one. The only time I will need them will be if a zombie apocalypse starts, then I will breakwith my car in the closest weapons shot to arm myself.

21/12/12, you are late man.

Jerk's Plan:
1. Sell AK47s to Spain
2. Wait for Spain to die
3. BEACHFRONT PROPERTY.

Jerk only has one gun, and I control it.

Jerk, on 21 December 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

Unfortunatelly you don't need to do anything to kill Spain.

Now I'm depressed.

Fuck.

wacko, on 22 December 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

You do know how to pull his trigger.

Just push the party button, I'm locked and loaded.

Jerk, on 22 December 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

No no, I meant the trigger where you get angry and call people retards.

When was this? I don't know to what you're referring but I'm not denying it exists. I'm just too lazy to look further than this thread.

Hey, I might be slow, but I try to challenge myself.

Quote

I will note that another myth of the gun is their lethality; in reality, someone who gets shot has an 80% chance of survival, as opposed to someone who gets stabbed, who has an 86% chance of survival. Even people shot in the head have a 60% chance of survival.

Wouldn't someone get a better chance of surviving if they were shot further away?

That would depend on a lot of factors, based of location of penetration, type of gun, type of bullet, etc.

It's an odd question to ask.

Yeah, but shooting someone three feet away with a handgun would have a different lethality than something another circumstance, so Titanium's statistics are averaged, possibly.

Titanium Dragon, on 23 December 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

But these percentages are affected by other conditions, such as health and location. If a person gets shot in the middle of nowhere, odds are that person will die.

It's true that ballistics wounds aren't inherently fatal unless they hit a specific part of the body for which treatment could not be applied quickly enough but I wouldn't really put any stock in TD's numbers as the variables in question are so fucking broad that their actual statistical significance could only be determined by an extremely complex set of circumstances.

This post has been edited by Jerk: 24 December 2012 - 05:52 AM

Your so innocent falconBoy. Guns were made for one thing and one thing only.

gun sex

bluefox, on 24 December 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

They were and are used to defend and to attack. Don't make this personal.

This post has been edited by falconboy99: 25 December 2012 - 06:27 AM

"Your so innocent falconBoy."

NOW, it is personal? THAT is the thing that is going to make this personal?

This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for [personal].

masturbation

Meowth, on 25 December 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

Yeah, pretty much. It's a different level of personal. Anyway, Carch explained how defending against a theater shooting could go wrong because both would be moving and everyone would be panicking, killing or injuring innocent bystanders. Even if they got advice beforehand on what to play dead on occasions like this, there's no telling how they would react to guns firing. I agree with him on that.

If all guns were banned, there would still be a way for people to get them. A way to deal with an armed man in a theater would be for everyone to play dead or everyone to go crazy and charge at him. Both would be improbable, since they'd be panicking.

Banning guns will stop some, maybe many of these instances. But what about the few events that happen anyway after the ban? There would be no way of defending yourself. Right now, even with guns being legal, people still can't deal with these situations, since there aren't that many people carrying around guns in the first place. That could change.

If a theater has a handful of people that have guns, a shooter would already be discouraged. Sometimes, they'll go ahead anyway, since they're probably insane. The shooter will send some shots out, killing or injuring some people. Guns are useless unless the person knows how to use them properly, unless people start getting encouraged to get trained. Back to the story, he'll get taken down, and the fatality count would be lower than if the people had no guns.

This post has been edited by falconboy99: 27 December 2012 - 05:34 PM

I have no idea what you tried to say there. I feel there were multiple contradictions but in all honesty it felt like reading a 4th grader's essay.

I appreciate your criticism. You're probably right.

This post has been edited by falconboy99: 27 December 2012 - 05:21 PM

I like it how Falconboy persists on living in his own world.

falconboy if you ban guns you have too take all the other guns that are already in cirulation which is by far no easy task. It's like looking for trouble that you dont need. Then you have social backlash from the pepole that own guns and have done nothing wrong which makes a new problem. I dident mean to heart your feelings I was just ponting out that wen someone uses a gun most of the time there not looking to wound them.

I agree with you on the first part, but on your second argument, there aren't any statistics that prove it.

falconboy99, on 28 December 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

The part about social backlash? That's actually a reasonable thing to consider. There's no doubt that people will follow through with it. Not everyone will, but there will be many people who would rather fight than give up their guns.

At least giv'em a refund, eh?

Sorry, I was talking about bluefox's last sentence.

This post has been edited by falconboy99: 29 December 2012 - 04:39 AM

Fun Fact #1: the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights is there so if the government tries to screw you over you a least have a fighting chance.

Fun Fact #2: the BATFE (that's the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives fore all you kids who don't know) killed 70 some people, 21 of which were children, which either burned alive or from the cyanide created form burning CS gas. They did not even try to put out the fires, as they would not allow the fire dpt. near the building. This all happened under jackass Bill Clinton.

Fun Fact #3: The aforementioned asshole Bill Clinton posted the first ban on "assault weapons", most of which were not assault rifles (i.e. selective fire) but semi-automatic rifles. The consensus about the ban was it did absolutely nothing to lower the gun violence statistics. Furthermore he used an executive order (first used by FDR the most socialist president we've ever had) to instate it which means he did not need anyone approval to do so.

Fun Fact #4: Most gun violence crimes are committed in places that have very stringent gun control laws. Case in point, CT has an "assault weapons" ban already in place. Why is it that no one ever decides to go to the south and shoot up a school, hmm, i wonder? Maybe because most of those kids grew up around guns and know how to deal with the situation; or maybe because the local community would skin the shooter alive. Also why the father of a child killed in Columbine, spoke in front of the Senate saying that he was opposed to another gun ban.

And Fun Fact #5: Most gun violence is committed with illegally obtained weapons, most murder happen with either a blunt object or a knife. More people die every year from drunk/ or otherwise idiotic drivers than they do of getting shot. People also do not realize that some deaths from guns are suicides.

As a last note, would it not make more sense to educate people about gun, have them know how and when to use them safely; than to treat them like the boogyman in the closet. ignorance often leads to fear.

yo

I don't know, man. You made some interesting points, but that sounds awful Republican.

And everybody knows that Republicans are objectively wrong... right? RIGHT?

Meowth, on 04 January 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

FTFY. Yes. We haven't been over this enough, evidently.

Jerk, on 04 January 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

FTFY.

Quote

Do you have a tomahawk cruise missile? Do you have a tank? Do you have a F-35? Do you have nukes, sarin gas, or napalm? Do you have vehicle mounted 50 calibur machine guns?

No?

The military does.

I seem to remember the Iraqis having tanks and planes and plenty of guns and we rolled over them in a matter of weeks.

Do you REALLY think that you can fight back against the US military, if it decides to roll over you?

If so, you're pretty dumb.

Quote

This is just idiocy. A crazy cult who was dealing in illegal firearms thought it was a good idea to start shooting at ATF agents, then camp out. They boobytrapped their compound, setting it up so they could set it on fire if the ATF attacked. The ATF moved in and they set it on fire. There were dozens of crazy, armed cultists who were willing to set up their compound to burn to prevent their leader from being arrested. They died because they were crazy. I wouldn't send the fire department in to be shot at by crazy cultists.

Anyone who complains about this is pretty stupid. Waco was the result of wackos. You want to bitch, look at Ruby Ridge, not Waco. Ruby Ridge was the result of mutual stupidity; Waco was the result of crazy cultists.

Quote

Ah more crazy. The assault weapons ban was utterly useless, but it was from Congress, not Bill Clinton; the president's executive orders have limited power.

Quote

This is nonsense. The South has had several school shootings - Virginia tech and the clocktower sniper in Texas being both prominent and very high body count incidents. The South has Louisana, the state with the highest homicide rate, and numerous states in the South have very high homicide rates - indeed, the South has above-average rates on the whole.

The idea that "stringent gun control laws" = "high homicide rates" is pure retarded nonsense. It is obviously false; there is absolutely NO relationship either way between gun ownership rates and gun control and homicide rates. Hawaii has few guns and a low homicide rate; Wyoming has a ridiculous number of guns and also a low homicide rate. Louisana has an average firearm ownership rate, and a homicide rate in excess of many third world countries. Most of Europe has much lower homicide rates than the US, and they have crazy restrictive gun laws. If it was really that bad, then those places would be warzones. It just isn't the case.

But in the US, there appears to be no correlation either way.

Quote

False. Half of US homicides are committed by gun (that's not including suicides, mind). And yes, more people die from vehicular accidents than die by gun, but guns are used a lot less often than cars are, too, so its kind of difficult to compare.

I should also point out that the black market prefers semiautomatics, and most gun homicides involve a large caliber revolver, thus making Fun Fact number 5 complete and utter bullshit.

Also, the second amendment is to protect the rights of militia, who at the time of writing were considered auxiliary to the military and necessary to defend the nation from foreign attack. It had nothing to do with rebelling against government, but everything to do with backing said government up in the event of a foreign country's invasion. It says so right in the amendment itself: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to defend the state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's pretty sad how that amendment has been contorted.

Carcharocles, on 05 January 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

Firstly, you're completely wrong. Yes, they saw guns as a means of defending themselves from foreign governments - but they also saw them as a means of protecting themselves from their own government, and indeed the idea that they could overthrow the government if it became tyrannical (and they expected it to happen periodically) was very much part of why they put the right into the Constitution. Whether or not that was wise is another matter, but you have to recognize that yes, indeed, they did indeed mean that everyone should own guns, and that it was their right, and that the government could not infringe upon it.

In any case, it is indeed a personal right to bear arms - the comma indicates the rationale, but it is very clear.

Quote

The Supreme Court in fact recently ruled on the obvious fact that the fact that the second amendment says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" indeed meant exactly what was written there rather than contrived crap that people made up.

If you believe it doesn't represent a personal right to bear arms, you are wrong - the historical record, the actual written amendment, and the Supreme Court ALL are against you.

Even so, I'd like the government to break down doors and take guns from rednecks just so they actually live their worst fears.

I also love having TD around to articulate all this shit for me. Or if I don't know, I learn something.

This post has been edited by Jerk: 09 January 2013 - 06:47 AM

^copycat faggot

You know how everybody talks about Jefferson having a bunch of kids by his slaves? That makes him a serial rapist too, you know.

Sooo... Everything i got from this post could be written as follows: guns are bad and i will rip anyone who dosen't follow my thought process a new asshole. Seriously? I am a member of the NRA, and have been shooting since i was 12. I can see why people say to ban guns, and i agree that we need to regulate firearms better, but isnt it a case of the person behind the gun? In my 5 years of competition shooting, ive never once had a thought to take my gun and kill people. Normal people don't think of mass murder as a viable hobby. Everyone is boo hooing about the sandy hook shooting, but on that same day a man in china walked into a school and stabbed around 30 kids. Do we move to ban knives? The point im trying to make is a gun is a tool. Normal people see them as tools. Only the mentally insane see them as murder weapons. We need to regulate them, not guns.

PixelatedKhan, I'm not sure which post you read, but I would say this thread as a whole has turned out more in the "against gun control" range.

Meowth, on 14 January 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

Yes but the gun control people generally read louder.

PixelatedKhan, on 14 January 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

Normal people can become killers to given the rite conditions. The gun is just a simple tool isn't it? Shame on every one for blaming a tool for doing it's job.

Ace, on 14 January 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

GUNS BLACKMAILED ME AND RUINED MY LIFE