Donald Trump running for president

ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Was the shooter in '96 taking prescribed anti-depressent drugs? Whats his medical history?
Ill answer my own question, and just as I suspected and I swear I never looked into this shooter before he had been prescribed Prothiaden, a tricyclic antidepressant.

Side effects:
Hypomania
Delusions
Hallucinations
Anxiety
Ataxia (dunno what that is but sounds spooky so I’ll list it, LOL!)
Restlessness
Excitement

And much more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosulepin#Side_effects

I would like to see his entire medical history and find out what else he may have been on, but to me it sounds like Australian doctors created Martin Bryant as the way he was in '96. Im not saying intentionally, but most mass shooters in modern developed places this is excactly the case.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
It took hours for police to gun down the San Bernardino shooters after their rampage. Where were all the civvys with guns when this happened?
They were too busy on AR15 message boards telling the internet how tough they are.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Ill answer my own question, and just as I suspected and I swear I never looked into this shooter before he had been prescribed Prothiaden, a tricyclic antidepressant.

Side effects:
Hypomania
Delusions
Hallucinations
Anxiety
Ataxia (dunno what that is but sounds spooky so I’ll list it, LOL!)
Restlessness
Excitement

And much more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosulepin#Side_effects

I would like to see his entire medical history and find out what else he may have been on, but to me it sounds like Australian doctors created Martin Bryant as the way he was in '96. Im not saying intentionally, but most mass shooters in modern developed places this is excactly the case.
Why not blame water then? Or the sun? You pick out one thing from this person's life and pin the blame on that. Antidepressants are widespread and have helped a lot of people, but some people don't respond or are not properly diagnosed and managed. This is like blaming a chemotherapy drug for somebody that died from stage 4 pancreatic cancer. As for ataxia, that refers to muscle movement and coordination, something that would prevent a shooter from hitting targets.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
It doesnt really mean its because of the gun reform...the prior big mass shooting above and beyond what happened in 96 was way way back in 1928 without gun reform, perhaps nobody went super bezerk. But as far as I see people want to kill its business as usual and I see rape is been on the climb (overall crime down though :)) in Australia. Its only a matter of time (and I 100% want to be wrong with this) that something will match or surpass '96 shooting and the main cause of the unnecessary deaths will be both the combination of gun control and anti-gun culture just like unfortunately happened in NZ the other day. Was the shooter in '96 taking prescribed anti-depressent drugs? Whats his medical history?

Its mass murder in Australia as usual anyways, they happen all the time. Many people there are violent especially law authorities but Ill get to that later in this post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Keep in mind Australia is just like the US and have a "documented" 270 massacres over a period of 140 years since the invasion of the indigenous land and had gone through racial cleansing the past century and clearly are all screwed up, oppressed, have a double digit less life expectancy by the government of Australia in which part of the reason is government tyranny and handling as where the indigenous people are murdered by police and prison authorities, a total of 407 and counting since 1991 and 140 this past decade alone. I would like to ask them how the they feel historically about gun control. (excuse the long run on again, lol)
https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2019/feb/16/deaths-inside-indigenous-australian-deaths-in-custody
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/28/the-147-dead-indigenous-leaders-demand-action-over-unacceptable-deaths-in-custody
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/28/national-shame-147-indigenous-people-die-in-custody-in-australia-in-a-decade

Depending on who's shoes your in, for many Australia sounds like a vast shythole,.....not that I dont think most people are cool and damn I would love to visit there some day.

Just have to add final shot at Australia, that government props up mass murder and genocide globally, in particular the middle east. That government is a no good mass murdering machine.
You are incorrect. In the 18 years prior to the 96 attack there were 13 massacres involving 4 or more people. After 96 their were zilch, nada, zero.

But yeah, not related at all to gun control reform :rollseyes:
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
You are incorrect. In the 18 years prior to the 96 attack there were 13 massacres involving 4 or more people. After 96 their were zilch, nada, zero.

But yeah, not related at all to gun control reform :rollseyes:
In the link from the post you quoted I counted 12 specific massacres involving 4 or more people since after ‘96. The 3 that were double digits were all from arson so we should look into banning matches and lighters.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Why not blame water then? Or the sun? You pick out one thing from this person's life and pin the blame on that. Antidepressants are widespread and have helped a lot of people, but some people don't respond or are not properly diagnosed and managed. This is like blaming a chemotherapy drug for somebody that died from stage 4 pancreatic cancer. As for ataxia, that refers to muscle movement and coordination, something that would prevent a shooter from hitting targets.
I do that because I think it always needs to be part of the discussion. Personally I believe these drugs significantly helps FAR more people than it harms, I also sense that often here in the US they are heavily over-prescribed for issues that need to be dealt with outside of drugs but thats a huge topic. I do believe the media hides the prescription drug issue as to not offend its sponsors and effect its cash flow.

But to be clear I am not anti psych drugs, I am for it, but there are clear problems with the system that need to be address right away and I dont think banning guns will solve this separate issue. I will say with proper due process in front of a jury I can support limiting guns from psych patients but I am heavily worried about effects of charging people as guilty and needing proving to be innocent afterwards. It has to be implemented properly and I have some ideas.

Last time I checked, the sun, water, and probably chemo drugs didnt have psychological interactions so I dont think Im worried about that.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Last time I checked, the sun, water, and probably chemo drugs didnt have psychological interactions so I dont think Im worried about that.
You should check again. Chemo brain is a fairly common topic in treatment and psychosis from chemotherapy is certainly a barrier to managing cancer patients. You're discussing a medical issue based on your feelings and not on medical facts. If somebody with mental issues so severe that they committed murder wasn't on some form of pharmacological treatment, I would say that would be a failure. By picking one factor out of this person's life, you're just distracting from the known issue. We can debate all day if maybe medication might have had a role, but it seems odd to focus on the maybe and claim that the one thing we know for sure was involved (i.e. the freaking gun) isn't an issue.

As for side effects that get listed in drug PIs based off of clinical trials, that's not so black and white. When you get through all of the phases needed for approval, you're not recruiting healthy people and it depends a lot on how the clinical trial is set up. It's not easy to distinguish the chicken from the egg when it comes to is the adverse reaction from the disease or the medication. Of course you're going to have depression, anxiety, risk of suicide, etc in an antidepressant trial since you're using people with depression so severe that they needed to get on a clinical trial. That said, I am very strongly in favor of better education for prescribers so they're not handing out xanax like candy. I'm even worried about people playing around with nootropics.
 

youngandfree

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
You are correct, he was a brave brave man. Who stopped the shooting with out using or carrying a firearm of his own.

Police apprehended him in 17 mins. They were on scene in less than 4 minutes.

Don't be a smartass on facts you clearly havent read up on.

It took hours for police to gun down the San Bernardino shooters after their rampage. Where were all the civvys with guns when this happened?
Following the gun laws unlike the shooters.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
You should check again. Chemo brain is a fairly common topic in treatment and psychosis from chemotherapy is certainly a barrier to managing cancer patients. You're discussing a medical issue based on your feelings and not on medical facts. If somebody with mental issues so severe that they committed murder wasn't on some form of pharmacological treatment, I would say that would be a failure. By picking one factor out of this person's life, you're just distracting from the known issue. We can debate all day if maybe medication might have had a role, but it seems odd to focus on the maybe and claim that the one thing we know for sure was involved (i.e. the freaking gun) isn't an issue.

As for side effects that get listed in drug PIs based off of clinical trials, that's not so black and white. When you get through all of the phases needed for approval, you're not recruiting healthy people and it depends a lot on how the clinical trial is set up. It's not easy to distinguish the chicken from the egg when it comes to is the adverse reaction from the disease or the medication. Of course you're going to have depression, anxiety, risk of suicide, etc in an antidepressant trial since you're using people with depression so severe that they needed to get on a clinical trial. That said, I am very strongly in favor of better education for prescribers so they're not handing out xanax like candy. I'm even worried about people playing around with nootropics.
Hmmm, interesting I dont much at all about chemo treatments. I dont mean to come across as singularly pick out pharma, although I know it sounds like that every-time since I dunno how to express it properly. I do have a personal bias Ive seen a few people close to me go downhill hard after being prescribed meds but Ive also known people that have been saved by them and progress very well in life and couldnt do so without them.

Nootropics worry me too when I see that on the forums....I stay away from that, kratom worries the crap out of me but I see how that can help people addicted to opiods but I really havent looked deep into these things at all. My nootropic is education, mind training (meditation) and a good nights sleep with coffee first thing in the morning....ok coffee all day :)
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Following the gun laws unlike the shooters.
You just disproved the "good guy" with a gun argument. So you're saying everybody should have a gun and then stand around doing nothing when somebody is on a murder rampage?
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Hmmm, interesting I dont much at all about chemo treatments. I dont mean to come across as singularly pick out pharma, although I know it sounds like that every-time since I dunno how to express it properly. I do have a personal bias Ive seen a few people close to me go downhill hard after being prescribed meds but Ive also known people that have been saved by them and progress very well in life and couldnt do so without them.

Nootropics worry me too when I see that on the forums....I stay away from that, kratom worries the crap out of me but I see how that can help people addicted to opiods but I really havent looked deep into these things at all. My nootropic is education, mind training (meditation) and a good nights sleep with coffee first thing in the morning....ok coffee all day :)
I'm just showing another way to look at it. I'm all for studying if drugs contribute to gun murders, but the NRA took care of that with the Dickey amendment which prevents the CDC from using funds to study gun violence. I'm fairly certain they're also the ones that started the "look over here at the antidepressants" propaganda.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'm just showing another way to look at it. I'm all for studying if drugs contribute to gun murders, but the NRA took care of that with the Dickey amendment which prevents the CDC from using funds to study gun violence. I'm fairly certain they're also the ones that started the "look over here at the antidepressants" propaganda.
I never heard of that..I think I’m the only hard pro-gun supported who hates the NRA, now I have another reason to despise them.
 

youngandfree

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
You just disproved the "good guy" with a gun argument. So you're saying everybody should have a gun and then stand around doing nothing when somebody is on a murder rampage?
I didn't disprove anything, and surely didn't say people should have guns and do nothing. They had illegal AR15's that the state of California said you're not allowed to have. The texas church shooter was stopped by a good guy that owned an AR that wasn't restricted or neutered like California has.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I didn't disprove anything, and surely didn't say people should have guns and do nothing. They had illegal AR15's that the state of California said you're not allowed to have. The texas church shooter was stopped by a good guy that owned an AR that wasn't restricted or neutered like California has.
So only an AR15 can stop an AR15? I thought your other argument was that ARs are only semi-automatic and just look scarier than they actually are. Here you are saying other guns don't stand a chance.
 

youngandfree

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
So only an AR15 can stop an AR15? I thought your other argument was that ARs are only semi-automatic and just look scarier than they actually are. Here you are saying other guns don't stand a chance.
It's good to know you still like to claim I said something I didn't.

There are less than 100,000 concealed carry permit holders in CA. So the likelyhood of you running into someone carrying a handgun is pretty slim. The chances of running into one in a "gun free zone" in cali even smaller. Byy comparison, Texas has 1.2 Million concealed carry permit holders.
https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/#numbers
That means Cali has 2tenths of 1 percent of its population with a permit to carry a gun. The highest populated state btw. Texas is the second most populated and 4% of its population has a concealed carry permit. Texas allows open carry, California does not.

So my point of people in Cali following the law means there are so few people walking around carrying a gun. Kind of like New Zealand. That's why no civilian stopped the San Bernadino terrorists.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Again, you don't have to pick one. Why are you convinced that only one law can be enforced at one time?
there are too many laws on the books to even begin to count...my point being that every time there is a huge wreck and many people are killed and injured no one yells we need to ban cars.


2016 was deadliest year on American roads in nearly a decade....up 14% from 2014...

nearly 40,000 people died in automobile accidents in 2016, up 14% from 2014.....
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
It's good to know you still like to claim I said something I didn't.

There are less than 100,000 concealed carry permit holders in CA. So the likelyhood of you running into someone carrying a handgun is pretty slim. The chances of running into one in a "gun free zone" in cali even smaller. Byy comparison, Texas has 1.2 Million concealed carry permit holders.
https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/#numbers
That means Cali has 2tenths of 1 percent of its population with a permit to carry a gun. The highest populated state btw. Texas is the second most populated and 4% of its population has a concealed carry permit. Texas allows open carry, California does not.

So my point of people in Cali following the law means there are so few people walking around carrying a gun. Kind of like New Zealand. That's why no civilian stopped the San Bernadino terrorists.
Since we're cherry-picking now, let's go with Virginia. Gun laws there, as you know, are extremely limited. Virginia Tech shooting saw 49 people get shot with 32 dead. Before you say it, yes I know Virginia Tech had a firearm ban, but there were also no guns in that church in Texas. Stephen Willeford came from nearby, but outside of the church. So where were all those brave, gun-toting Virginians?
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
there are too many laws on the books to even begin to count...my point being that every time there is a huge wreck and many people are killed and injured no one yells we need to ban cars.


2016 was deadliest year on American roads in nearly a decade....up 14% from 2014...

nearly 40,000 people died in automobile accidents in 2016, up 14% from 2014.....
A few fringe people are calling for a ban. Most people are asking how we can meet in the middle and make things safer, which is what has and continues to happen with cars. You hear somebody say "hey, let's talk about how we can maybe stop school shootings" and you're automatically hearing them say "ban all guns"! It's the exact same thing when you keep hearing people say "I don't think the wall makes sense when there are better ways" as "open borders for all"! You're listening to a small group and claiming they speak for the larger group.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
there are too many laws on the books to even begin to count...my point being that every time there is a huge wreck and many people are killed and injured no one yells we need to ban cars.


2016 was deadliest year on American roads in nearly a decade....up 14% from 2014...

nearly 40,000 people died in automobile accidents in 2016, up 14% from 2014.....
There will be a day we no longer can legally drive anymore, it will be all done by AI. I dunno if I will see it fully implemented in my lifetime but it will, at least in most capacities.
 

youngandfree

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Since we're cherry-picking now, let's go with Virginia. Gun laws there, as you know, are extremely limited. Virginia Tech shooting saw 49 people get shot with 32 dead. Before you say it, yes I know Virginia Tech had a firearm ban, but there were also no guns in that church in Texas. Stephen Willeford came from nearby, but outside of the church. So where were all those brave, gun-toting Virginians?
What the ****. Of course no one else on VA Tech campus had a gun BECAUSE ITS AGAINST THE ****ING LAW.

What law am I cherry picking? I'm stating the fact that less than 1/3 of 1% of California is permitted to carry a gun. The chances of some civilian in Cali with a gun stopping a shooter are closer to ZERO than they are 1%.

Most normal functioning and law abiding citizens aren't illegally carrying a gun. Only criminals illegally carry them.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
A few fringe people are calling for a ban. Most people are asking how we can meet in the middle and make things safer, which is what has and continues to happen with cars. You hear somebody say "hey, let's talk about how we can maybe stop school shootings" and you're automatically hearing them say "ban all guns"! It's the exact same thing when you keep hearing people say "I don't think the wall makes sense when there are better ways" as "open borders for all"! You're listening to a small group and claiming they speak for the larger group.
politicians are media driven, I think we can agree on this?

I guess the high rate of death due to automobile accidents isn't as glamorous or as divisive as the debate on gun laws?


seriously if public safety was the foremost priority of news media/politicians we should be hearing much more on campaigns for safer driving, rather than debates on guns.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
There will be a day we no longer can legally drive anymore, it will be all done by AI. I dunno if I will see it fully implemented in my lifetime but it will, at least in most capacities.
they have had a ton of setbacks, but I think you will live to see the day when 'most' automobiles are driverless.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
politicians are media driven, I think we can agree on this?

I guess the high rate of death due to automobile accidents isn't as glamorous or as divisive as the debate on gun laws?


seriously if public safety was the foremost priority of news media/politicians we should be hearing much more on campaigns for safer driving, rather than debates on guns.
They are threatened by alternative media so priority is certainly ratings driven at all costs, people react and government comes to save the universe.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
They are threatened by alternative media so priority is certainly ratings driven at all costs, people react and government comes to save the universe.
lol...spartacus
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
What the ****. Of course no one else on VA Tech campus had a gun BECAUSE ITS AGAINST THE ****ING LAW.

What law am I cherry picking? I'm stating the fact that less than 1/3 of 1% of California is permitted to carry a gun. The chances of some civilian in Cali with a gun stopping a shooter are closer to ZERO than they are 1%.

Most normal functioning and law abiding citizens aren't illegally carrying a gun. Only criminals illegally carry them.
So you're just lying now? A University rule isn't a law. What "****ing law" are you referring to?

You're cherry-picking by ignoring every other shooting incident and picking two that fit your narrative. You're ignoring what happened in your own state because it doesn't fit your narrative. You gave an example of somebody coming from the outside of an incident in Texas to stop a shooting. You then said the same did not occur in California because of a smaller percentage of people with guns due to that state's laws. I gave you Virginia where nobody came from the outside of the incident to save the day like in Texas and where there are not the restrictions on firearms seen in California and your argument fell apart, so you're trying other ways to get out. In fact, the laws in Virginia are so relaxed that some Texans are getting their license there to avoid having to take a training course https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/texans-turning-to-virginia-for-concealed-handgun-licenses/287-548604932
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
politicians are media driven, I think we can agree on this?

I guess the high rate of death due to automobile accidents isn't as glamorous or as divisive as the debate on gun laws?


seriously if public safety was the foremost priority of news media/politicians we should be hearing much more on campaigns for safer driving, rather than debates on guns.
I'd agree that some are. Not all. There are plenty of politicians that prefer to not be in the media spotlight as you can see on most channels...it's the same couple of faces over and over.

You're acting like the automobile industry hasn't had to bend to government safety requests. How about if we require a written and physical test (including eyesight) for a gun license which will need to be renewed periodically. All gun owners need to purchase insurance for each of their guns. Like seat belts, airbags, etc. the government can decide what safety features need to go on guns. You'll need to have your guns inspected yearly to make sure they're safe to use (like emissions tests) and will need to pay for any fixes should they find a problem. The government will set a rate at which guns can safely fire. And the analogies go on.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I'd agree that some are. Not all. There are plenty of politicians that prefer to not be in the media spotlight as you can see on most channels...it's the same couple of faces over and over.

You're acting like the automobile industry hasn't had to bend to government safety requests. How about if we require a written and physical test (including eyesight) for a gun license which will need to be renewed periodically. All gun owners need to purchase insurance for each of their guns. Like seat belts, airbags, etc. the government can decide what safety features need to go on guns. You'll need to have your guns inspected yearly to make sure they're safe to use (like emissions tests) and will need to pay for any fixes should they find a problem. The government will set a rate at which guns can safely fire. And the analogies go on.
we don't need any more laws, what we need is adequate enforcement of existing laws....I can't speak for everywhere but here where I live I see cops turning a blind eye to traffic violations very often....I don't see nearly as many cars pulled over for traffic violations as I used to, and it isn't because drivers are driving safer.
 

youngandfree

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
So you're just lying now? A University rule isn't a law. What "****ing law" are you referring to?

You're cherry-picking by ignoring every other shooting incident and picking two that fit your narrative. You're ignoring what happened in your own state because it doesn't fit your narrative. You gave an example of somebody coming from the outside of an incident in Texas to stop a shooting. You then said the same did not occur in California because of a smaller percentage of people with guns due to that state's laws. I gave you Virginia where nobody came from the outside of the incident to save the day like in Texas and where there are not the restrictions on firearms seen in California and your argument fell apart, so you're trying other ways to get out. In fact, the laws in Virginia are so relaxed that some Texans are getting their license there to avoid having to take a training course https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/texans-turning-to-virginia-for-concealed-handgun-licenses/287-548604932
So you're just lying now?

VA law says public universities can make regulations banning firearms on campus. Va Tech has policy banning firearms pursuant to the virginia law. To argue that because no one was on the campus carrying a gun to stop a mass shooter proves that "good guys" don't stop mass murderers. ****ing stupid.

Virginia isn't the only state that issues non resident concealed carry permits "without training". In VA you do have to provide a certificate of completion with your application, whether you are a resident or non resident. So technically you received training. Plenty of people take online classes for many different things and are considered trained or educated on that topic. The reason people choose a VA non resident permit is because many other states recognize them. So for someone that travels to many states, it provides them the ability to be licensed to carry concealed. I've got a VA permit, and a non resident Utah permit that covers me in about 38 states. The Utah permit covers me in some states that don't recognize VA permits. It required a 6+ hour classroom and didn't require firearm handling. Prior to me getting a Utah permit, I had a non resident permit from PA. I printed an application, photo copy of VA permit, and a check for $25 and sent it off. Never even had to speak to a person in PA. So feel free to **** on all the other states that do the same thing that VA does.
 

youngandfree

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'd agree that some are. Not all. There are plenty of politicians that prefer to not be in the media spotlight as you can see on most channels...it's the same couple of faces over and over.

You're acting like the automobile industry hasn't had to bend to government safety requests. How about if we require a written and physical test (including eyesight) for a gun license which will need to be renewed periodically. All gun owners need to purchase insurance for each of their guns. Like seat belts, airbags, etc. the government can decide what safety features need to go on guns. You'll need to have your guns inspected yearly to make sure they're safe to use (like emissions tests) and will need to pay for any fixes should they find a problem. The government will set a rate at which guns can safely fire. And the analogies go on.
Driving a car is a privilege and not a constitutionally protected right. The government does have regulations on rate of fire for guns under the NFA regulations. If you want to have a gun that shoots more than 1 bullet with each trigger pull, you have to submit fingerprints, pay a $200 "tax", and at some point you had to get the approval of your local chief of police. Never mind that it could take up to a year to get approved to buy a machine gun that costs north of $10,000, adding to more burden on the buyer.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
In the link from the post you quoted I counted 12 specific massacres involving 4 or more people since after ‘96. The 3 that were double digits were all from arson so we should look into banning matches and lighters.
I should have stated involving a firearm, of which 1 was, but it was also a familicide (tragic killings of numerous family members).

If that's your argument against everything, might as well make every legal. Make all drugs legal since you cant stop them all. Make robberies legal since you cant stop them all. Make car theft legal since you cant stop them all. Make homicide legal since you cant stop them all.

No offence, but that is absolutely broken logic you have there.

If you think a semi automatic firearms shares a similar and needed function in society as a match, lighter or vehicle, there is seriously something wrong with you.

For what purpose, other than to kill or maim another human being does an AR 15 hold?
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
we don't need any more laws, what we need is adequate enforcement of existing laws....I can't speak for everywhere but here where I live I see cops turning a blind eye to traffic violations very often....I don't see nearly as many cars pulled over for traffic violations as I used to, and it isn't because drivers are driving safer.
Is the fact you dont see it really proof it is happening? By that logic NZ only has about 5 drug users because i havent seen anyone else do drugs.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
you know those car chases you see every now and then on tv, the ones where some dumbass is running red lights and swerving in and out of traffic and almost always end badly?

guess what? the penalty for fleeing police in a vehicle is usually less than 1 year in prison....this is insane!!!
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Is the fact you dont see it really proof it is happening? By that logic NZ only has about 5 drug users because i havent seen anyone else do drugs.

I take it you have never been shot?

ever been involved in a vehicle accident?
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Driving a car is a privilege and not a constitutionally protected right. The government does have regulations on rate of fire for guns under the NFA regulations. If you want to have a gun that shoots more than 1 bullet with each trigger pull, you have to submit fingerprints, pay a $200 "tax", and at some point you had to get the approval of your local chief of police. Never mind that it could take up to a year to get approved to buy a machine gun that costs north of $10,000, adding to more burden on the buyer.
God forbid you have to wait to hold a gun that serves zero purpose at all but fires 10 rounds per second.
 

youngandfree

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I should have stated involving a firearm, of which 1 was, but it was also a familicide (tragic killings of numerous family members).

If that's your argument against everything, might as well make every legal. Make all drugs legal since you cant stop them all. Make robberies legal since you cant stop them all. Make car theft legal since you cant stop them all. Make homicide legal since you cant stop them all.

No offence, but that is absolutely broken logic you have there.

If you think a semi automatic firearms shares a similar and needed function in society as a match, lighter or vehicle, there is seriously something wrong with you.

For what purpose, other than to kill or maim another human being does an AR 15 hold?
Thousands of people in the US hunt game with AR15's. From prairie dogs, to coyotes to deer feral hogs.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
I take it you have never been shot?

ever been involved in a vehicle accident?
Of course ive never been shot. Not many NZers have, and thats the entire point of my argument that the chance of that happening in my own country is next to zero.

I have been involved in an accident, but i dont then say, "well f*** it! I just crashed, might as well have a gun in case i also now get shot!"

Where im from, we recognise cars are useful forms of travel and grant immense freedom of movement, but we dont apply that same broken logic to needing a firearm that MUST be carried everywhere by a person whose shot 10 bullets in their life, sat a 3 page exam and then given free reign to purchase an AR15 then expected to take down an active shooter should the need arise.

If you liken driving and owing a car to owing a high powered rifle, then that is on you.
 

youngandfree

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Is the fact you dont see it really proof it is happening? By that logic NZ only has about 5 drug users because i havent seen anyone else do drugs.
Does the fact you've never seen millions of Americans shooting AR15's that weren't murdering people mean they don't exist?
 

youngandfree

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Of course ive never been shot. Not many NZers have, and thats the entire point of my argument that the chance of that happening in my own country is next to zero.

I have been involved in an accident, but i dont then say, "well f*** it! I just crashed, might as well have a gun in case i also now get shot!"

Where im from, we recognise cars are useful forms of travel and grant immense freedom of movement, but we dont apply that same broken logic to needing a firearm that MUST be carried everywhere by a person whose shot 10 bullets in their life, sat a 3 page exam and then given free reign to purchase an AR15 then expected to take down an active shooter should the need arise.

If you liken driving and owing a car to owing a high powered rifle, then that is on you.
Don't confuse our constitutional rights with what you are allowed to do.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Thousands of people in the US hunt game with AR15's. From prairie dogs, to coyotes to deer feral hogs.
Ah my apologies, i didnt realise an AR15 was the only weapon that people were capable of hunting with.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Does the fact you've never seen millions of Americans shooting AR15's that weren't murdering people mean they don't exist?
You realise that it wasnt me apply this logic, right? I was asking the same thing you are asking me.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
If that's your argument against everything, might as well make every legal. Make all drugs legal since you cant stop them all.
Why should they be illegal? The war on drugs has cost about 2 trillion dollars since it launched, has put countless non-violent offenders in prisons, and fueled most of these mass shootings your so concerned about, has empowered criminal organizations financially, and caused the slaughter and invasion of multiple countries by the US government and CIA in both the Middle East, Central and South America.

What people want to put in their own bodies as long as they dont infringe on the rights of others what business is it for you to tell people what they can or cant do to themselves?

Wanna regulate drugs like food for consumer protection? Ill write off on that.

Make robberies legal since you cant stop them all. Make car theft legal since you cant stop them all. Make homicide legal since you cant stop them all.
Why would I or anybody else legalize harming and stealing from other people? If that happens thats what guns are for, self defense. Thats my point, violence is bad, you cant prevent it from all happening but the first line of defense is self defense.

Whatcha talking about Willis? I am shocked you would even consider that that was my logic.

If you think a semi automatic firearms shares a similar and needed function in society as a match, lighter or vehicle, there is seriously something wrong with you.

For what purpose, other than to kill or maim another human being does an AR 15 hold?
There is nothing wrong with firearms, people enjoy them for sport and self defense. Society having these firearms is just smart, you never know when you have riots/civil unrest, a government coup, foreign invasion....we have it good now but you never know what the future holds and if your not prepared and dont think long term by then its too late. Thats why the 2nd Amendment was put in there in the first place, its good common sense to keep civilians strong and powerful to face the hardships reality can bring us.

Do you know anything about the LA Riots and how Koreans were able to defend for themselves when almost the entire city was in mass chaos and people were left only to defend for themselves?

You go ask those Koreans what their guns are for rather than some spoiled silver spoon fed well nurtured millineal liberal naive twitter burping snowflake tourists strolling around Australian beaches John Oliver was interviewing to try to prove how awesome gun control is.

Its easy to blow down gun rights when in a position in comfort, but during a crisis of social unrest or a war not having proper military grade assault weapons available to the citizens will certainly be far more costly to everyones families.

This is real shyt. Its a powerful statement for the defense of the 2nd amendment.

[video=youtube;tgCiC6qTtjs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs[/video]





 

youngandfree

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Ah my apologies, i didnt realise an AR15 was the only weapon that people were capable of hunting with.
I didn't say that was the only rifle people hunt with. You DID say that the only thing it's used for is to murder people.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Don't confuse our constitutional rights with what you are allowed to do.
I'm glad the logic of the 1700s still applies in your mind. Meanwhile I'm living about it 300 years in the future.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Of course ive never been shot. Not many NZers have, and thats the entire point of my argument that the chance of that happening in my own country is next to zero.

I have been involved in an accident, but i dont then say, "well f*** it! I just crashed, might as well have a gun in case i also now get shot!"

Where im from, we recognise cars are useful forms of travel and grant immense freedom of movement, but we dont apply that same broken logic to needing a firearm that MUST be carried everywhere by a person whose shot 10 bullets in their life, sat a 3 page exam and then given free reign to purchase an AR15 then expected to take down an active shooter should the need arise.

If you liken driving and owing a car to owing a high powered rifle, then that is on you.
It is statistically almost impossible to get shot in the USA. Especially where gun control laws are most lax, but its still almost impossible coast to coast.

Broken record, Broken record....Ill say it again.
 

youngandfree

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm glad the logic of the 1700s still applies in your mind. Meanwhile I'm living about it 300 years in the future.
Still under the British monarchy. You can keep what you're living under.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'm glad the logic of the 1700s still applies in your mind. Meanwhile I'm living about it 300 years in the future.
There is plenty of logic globally these days where mass slaughter of innocent civilians have taken place both by government and other groups. Democide is the #1 cause of death this past century.

Heck...even the Dalai Lama wanted to arm Tibetans in the 50's and they acted like you, then they has 1.3 million Tibeteans got slaughtered by the Chinese, 1 out of every single 6 Tibetans and still to this day still rise up with rocks and sticks in desperation to save their national identity and get slaughtered for it.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Why should they be illegal? The war on drugs has cost about 2 trillion dollars since it launched, has put countless non-violent offenders in prisons, and fueled most of these mass shootings your so concerned about, has empowered criminal organizations financially, and caused the slaughter and invasion of multiple countries by the US government and CIA in both the Middle East, Central and South America.

What people want to put in their own bodies as long as they dont infringe on the rights of others what business is it for you to tell people what they can or cant do to themselves?

Wanna regulate drugs like food for consumer protection? Ill write off on that.



Why would I or anybody else legalize harming and stealing from other people? If that happens thats what guns are for, self defense. Thats my point, violence is bad, you cant prevent it from all happening but the first line of defense is self defense.

Whatcha talking about Willis? I am shocked you would even consider that that was my logic.



There is nothing wrong with firearms, people enjoy them for sport and self defense. Society having these firearms is just smart, you never know when you have riots/civil unrest, a government coup, foreign invasion....we have it good now but you never know what the future holds and if your not prepared and dont think long term by then its too late. Thats why the 2nd Amendment was put in there in the first place, its good common sense to keep civilians strong and powerful to face the hardships reality can bring us.

Do you know anything about the LA Riots and how Koreans were able to defend for themselves when almost the entire city was in mass chaos and people were left only to defend for themselves?

You go ask those Koreans what their guns are for rather than some spoiled silver spoon fed well nurtured millineal liberal naive twitter burping snowflake tourists strolling around Australian beaches John Oliver was interviewing to try to prove how awesome gun control is.

Its easy to blow down gun rights when in a position in comfort, but during a crisis of social unrest or a war not having proper military grade assault weapons available to the citizens will certainly be far more costly to everyones families.

This is real shyt. Its a powerful statement for the defense of the 2nd amendment.

[video=youtube;tgCiC6qTtjs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs[/video]





Im more upset that you think an AR15 is going to win a war against the most funded military in the world, but yet you clutch that deluded argument as though it is happening right now.

But hey, if you're happy fighting against reforming laws that could save 36000 lives in the US each year, then you keep fighting tha good fight.

Despite 63 lives senselessly lost in the LA riots, it was worth the 600,000 lives lost to gun violence in the US in the time from 1992-2019. Yep, that kinda logic makes it all worthwhile.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
we don't need any more laws, what we need is adequate enforcement of existing laws....I can't speak for everywhere but here where I live I see cops turning a blind eye to traffic violations very often....I don't see nearly as many cars pulled over for traffic violations as I used to, and it isn't because drivers are driving safer.
Well then that's not CNN and politicians. That's cops not doing their job or not having the resources to do their job.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
I didn't say that was the only rifle people hunt with. You DID say that the only thing it's used for is to murder people.
My argument is that there is nothing an AR can do for the purpose of hunting that a single shot firearm cant also achieve.

The fact you need an AR for hunting is fallacious.
 

Top