172 replies to this topic

[DJ MC]

Heard a guy call into Stern yesterday saying this was a 'government conspiracy.'  Then saw FB connections saying the same.

 

That's a whole lot of crazy.

 

There are people out there who cry "government conspiracy" when Starbucks runs out of whipped cream for their Frappuchino.

 

That level of crazy is what I'd want a gun to defend against.

[SportsGuy]

How would they not have the same issues? Every country has home invasions, rapes, racial issues, etc.

The theory that you need it for 'protection' blows my mind. If someone breaks in, you are going to get up, go find the safe, unlock it (calmly), find the bullets, load it up, go track down the dude; all before he finds you...I mean, it seems ridiculous to me. An insane scenario that is just as likely as getting struck by lightning.

I know they have the same issues I asked if they had it to the same level in the same amount that we see here .

[McNulty]

I know they have the same issues I asked if they had it to the same level in the same amount that we see here .

 

Ha, I dunno man.  Measuring that kinda stuff seems above my paygrade.

 

I'd be interested to see those too.

[SportsGuy]

Ha, I dunno man. Measuring that kinda stuff seems above my paygrade.

I'd be interested to see those too.

But that does make a difference in the point you are making.

For example, if a violent crime occurs every minute in the U.S. and it's every 10 min in Australia, it makes s huge difference,

Basically my point is just because it works in one place Doesn't mean it will work on another.

If you ban guns people will find something else they will always find a way.

[mweb08]

They don't always find another way in regards to mass killings.

[McNulty]

But that does make a difference in the point you are making.

For example, if a violent crime occurs every minute in the U.S. and it's every 10 min in Australia, it makes s huge difference,

Basically my point is just because it works in one place Doesn't mean it will work on another.

If you ban guns people will find something else they will always find a way.

 

Well, if you are looking at the numbers, you have to consider it per capita.

 

Either way, your last sentence I totally disagree with.  That's probably enough politics for one day though.

[mweb08]

But that does make a difference in the point you are making.


For example, if a violent crime occurs every minute in the U.S. and it's every 10 min in Australia, it makes s huge difference,


Basically my point is just because it works in one place Doesn't mean it will work on another.


If you ban guns people will find something else they will always find a way.

Well, if you are looking at the numbers, you have to consider it per capita.

And let's take out all the gun violence that most NRA supporters don't really care much about except for when they make points about how much gun violence there is with illegally owned guns. That type of violence isn't the most relevant when talking about protecting your house out in the suburbs.

[SportsGuy]

They don't always find another way in regards to mass killings.

They would if they had to.

[SportsGuy]

http://www.cnn.com/2...railway-attack/

[mweb08]

They don't always find another way in regards to mass killings.

Thru would if they had to.

Not often. The objective should be to make it harder to kill a bunch of people very quickly. Having a damn near machine gun makes it pretty easy.

[SammyBirdland]

So, in summary, we need better gun laws because people are getting killed.  Also, you don't need a gun because you're probably not going to get killed.

[SportsGuy]

Not often. The objective should be to make it harder to kill a bunch of people very quickly. Having a damn near machine gun makes it pretty easy.

You have no idea how often it would occur. You are just hoping.

Outlaw guns, whackos make bombs and buy grenades. There is always a way. If you are hell bent on killing a bunch of people, you will find a way to do it.

But again, the machine gun stuff is a different debate for me. Hand guns though should absolutely not be a problem IMO.

[RShack]

But how do their issues compare to ours?   In others, do they have the amount of home invasions, rapes, racial issues, etc...Because if not, it really doesn't matter.

 

We don't have a lot of home invasions... why do you think we do?  We don't.

 

And what does racial issues have to do with somebody breaking into your house and assaulting you?  When that happens, it's usually somebody you know... 

 

But never mind the truth... BE AFRAID!  BE VERY AFRAID!

[McNulty]

So, in summary, we need better gun laws because people are getting killed.  Also, you don't need a gun because you're probably not going to get killed.

 

Haha well done.

 

If we banned assault rifles and did background checks, that would satisfy my liberal ass.  I would imagine there's room for compromise on this issue, if the NRA and other lobbies would get out of the way.

[SportsGuy]

I never said racial issues has anything to do with home invasions. Just shut up and go away.

We don't have a lot of home invasions... why do you think we do?  We don't.
 
And what does racial issues have to do with somebody breaking into your house and assaulting you?  When that happens, it's usually somebody you know... 
 
But never mind the truth... BE AFRAID!  BE VERY AFRAID!

[mweb08]

Not often. The objective should be to make it harder to kill a bunch of people very quickly. Having a damn near machine gun makes it pretty easy.

You have no idea how often it would occur. You are just hoping.


Outlaw guns, whackos make bombs and buy grenades. There is always a way. If you are hell bent on killing a bunch of people, you will find a way to do it.


But again, the machine gun stuff is a different debate for me. Hand guns though should absolutely not be a problem IMO.

I'm making a very logical assumption.

[mweb08]

So, in summary, we need better gun laws because people are getting killed.  Also, you don't need a gun because you're probably not going to get killed.

 
Haha well done.
 
If we banned assault rifles and did background checks, that would satisfy my liberal ass.  I would imagine there's room for compromise on this issue, if the NRA and other lobbies would get out of the way.

Not exactly much to ask for.

[SportsGuy]

I'm making a very logical assumption.

It's more naive than logical but ok.

Actually, let me rephrase that Mike.

It's logical in that, if you take guns away, you should less mass killings.

It's naive to think people won't figure out a way to do what they want to do.

[SportsGuy]

http://www.cnn.com/2...railway-attack/

Found a way....

[mweb08]

I'm making a very logical assumption.

It's more naive than logical but ok.


Actually, let me rephrase that Mike.


It's logical in that, if you take guns away, you should less mass killings.


It's naive to think people won't figure out a way to do what they want to do.

Well that Australia article McNulty posted is evidence that somehow supports my naivety. Somehow, people aren't finding a way to fill others or themselves nearly as often.