Donald Trump running for president

youngandfree said:
See my reference to the guy in China that single handedly killed 18 or 19 with a knife and injured 45 more.
Click to expand...

I cant buy a kitchen knife off the shelf in Beijing because some crazy nut a few years ago who had police injustice served against him decided to pull one off the shelf and attack a cop. ROFL!
 
CJNator said:
I addressed my statement already and yes I over exaggerate but what I really meant was taking away firearms will only hold more opportunities in other categories. It's better to have weapons that can be monitored more widely available to limit weapons that cannot be monitored used.
Click to expand...
Wut.

Saying a gun is better means of killing than using chemicals is a terrible argument. Both result in death. Neither are acceptable
 
youngandfree said:
How? People crammed butt to nut, he could easily walk through the crowd slicing people as he goes, and before anyone realizes what's going on, he's sliced up 50 people.
Click to expand...
Lmao now you're making up fake scenarios with fake outcomes. Use sources from real life not some made up crap you can tailor to suit any outcome.

Here's the facts: his guns were capable of widespread damage because they were guns.

He fired from above, meaning that victims heads were a lot easier to hit.

Stabbings require being close to victims. People can converge on someone, or use longer instruments to defend themselves.

He's not killing 58 people if he opts for a knife. He chose a gun because he knew it would inflict the most damage
 
Jiigzz said:
Lmao now you're making up fake scenarios with fake outcomes. Use sources from real life not some made up crap you can tailor to suit any outcome.

Here's the facts: his guns were capable of widespread damage because they were guns.

He fired from above, meaning that victims heads were a lot easier to hit.

Stabbings require being close to victims. People can converge on someone, or use longer instruments to defend themselves.

He's not killing 58 people if he opts for a knife. He chose a gun because he knew it would inflict the most damage
Click to expand...

Its easy to do if you do it one at a time, serial killer style all with a knife or bare hands if your good enough.

I dont think he is saying they are the same, I think his point is just more safety doesnt really mean that much more safety...but then again I have to change course as I think people are losing track, maybe if we stop prescribing so many Americans with drugs we would be worry about both gun and knife attacks as much.
 
Im not hearing a whole lot anymore about the Antifa material this guy supposedly had. Was that debunked or discredited already?
 
ax1 said:
Im not hearing a whole lot anymore about the Antifa material this guy supposedly had. Was that debunked or discredited already?
Click to expand...

Debunked. The only "evidence" is a post praising the shooter from a fake Facebook account meant to appear to be Australian Antifa. Infowars claims that the owners of the hotel are Antifa if you're into that sort of thing. Regardless Antifa has been around since the 20s and are doing good work.
 
Jiigzz said:
Lmao now you're making up fake scenarios with fake outcomes. Use sources from real life not some made up crap you can tailor to suit any outcome.

Here's the facts: his guns were capable of widespread damage because they were guns.

He fired from above, meaning that victims heads were a lot easier to hit.

Stabbings require being close to victims. People can converge on someone, or use longer instruments to defend themselves.

He's not killing 58 people if he opts for a knife. He chose a gun because he knew it would inflict the most damage
Click to expand...

You and misfit are putting words into my mouth. I never once speculated on why he chose guns over knives. I'm saying a knife is able to cause mass casualty in an area where people are packed together in rather quick fashion.
 
youngandfree said:
You and misfit are putting words into my mouth. I never once speculated on why he chose guns over knives. I'm saying a knife is able to cause mass casualty in an area where people are packed together in rather quick fashion.
Click to expand...
Yet you can't ****ing admit that guns caused way more carnage in that situation. You'd rather make up possible scenarios and use fallacious examples to get your point across.
 
If knives are so dangerous, why do we need guns? Why doesn't everyone just arm themselves with knives if they are so efficient at killing?
 
ax1 said:
Im overseas in one of the globes most gun free countries as I type this and been coming here for over 12 years and Ive been watching this country turn into a police state ses pool (I cant believe Im saying that about China) due to terrorism concerns in a country people are prone to mass machette murders among other incidents not ever heard on television or most news people tell me here. Some of the stories I hear from actual people Im glad to come back to a country as to where there is closer balance of the people and the longest running democracy in world history. I bet I can find millions and millions of people here in China that wish they had the same gun laws from the USA here.

You cant cherry pick countries that have had this short term success and assume that would be good for the USA, I do wish them eternal peace though.
Click to expand...

They're also communist, so you have to take tat into account.

Communist countries are known to be like that. Any evidence for non-communist countries?
 
youngandfree said:
You and misfit are putting words into my mouth. I never once speculated on why he chose guns over knives. I'm saying a knife is able to cause mass casualty in an area where people are packed together in rather quick fashion.
Click to expand...

I can't even. It's like a brick wall lol. You know what, yes knives are more dangerous than guns. I vote that instead of shooting people in war, we should knife them because we can do far more damage than any gun ever could. In fact, I reckon 1 man with 1 knife can take down 10 people with guns.

Here you go: Invalid Link Removed

Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.

In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.
 
Misfit28 said:
Yet you can't ****ing admit that guns caused way more carnage in that situation. You'd rather make up possible scenarios and use fallacious examples to get your point across.
Click to expand...

I gave historical examples and you said it didn't count. You're the one that can't admit facts.

Go ahead and quote my post where I said a knife would have caused more carnage in this scenario. I'll wait.....
 
Jiigzz said:
Here you go: Invalid Link Removed

Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.

In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.
Click to expand...
Reduction in suicides, huh? Who would have thought?
 
Jiigzz said:
I can't even. It's like a brick wall lol. You know what, yes knives are more dangerous than guns. I vote that instead of shooting people in war, we should knife them because we can do far more damage than any gun ever could. In fact, I reckon 1 man with 1 knife can take down 10 people with guns.

Here you go: Invalid Link Removed

Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.

In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.
Click to expand...

I'll drink a Foster's to celebrate.
 
youngandfree said:
I gave historical examples and you said it didn't count. You're the one that can't admit facts.

Go ahead and quote my post where I said a knife would have caused more carnage in this scenario. I'll wait.....
Click to expand...
Your "examples" are ridiculous and have little or nothing in common with the incident in question.

You'll be waiting a while, as I'm on my phone right now and it's difficult to sort back through the posts on here.
 
Jiigzz said:
I can't even. It's like a brick wall lol. You know what, yes knives are more dangerous than guns. I vote that instead of shooting people in war, we should knife them because we can do far more damage than any gun ever could. In fact, I reckon 1 man with 1 knife can take down 10 people with guns.

Here you go: Invalid Link Removed

Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.

In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.
Click to expand...
LMAO at the first paragraph.
 
Godstrength said:
Invalid Link Removed
DemntedCowboy

Only one gun??
Its sounds close at times then farther away

This is a 16 min unedited video
Click to expand...
How are you sure its unedited. And yes its only 1 gun. There is no doubt about it. Take it from a guy that has spent over 3 years in combat. Been blown up 49 times, shot twice and stabbed once. Just saying. What your hearing Godstrength is the echo of the shots between the buildings thats why one sounds close and one sounds far away
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Possible alternative theory: his brother killed a bunch of people and then killed himself or was killed...he might be upset and not thinking clearly to give a coherent interview. Or his brother is really the loch ness monster.
Click to expand...
That part is weird. Cause the news said he took his own life, but the LVPD Chief of Police said they shot him when they stormed the room? Maybe a miss quote?
 
youngandfree said:
You and misfit are putting words into my mouth. I never once speculated on why he chose guns over knives. I'm saying a knife is able to cause mass casualty in an area where people are packed together in rather quick fashion.
Click to expand...

I would also in that being a victim of a mass gun or knife stabbing here in the US is close to impossible. This is always hyped up for political gain. Its really close to impossible. People should fear being behind the wheel or getting bit by a poison spidermonkey first.
 
ax1 said:
I would also in that being a victim of a gun or knife stabbing here in the US is close to impossible. People should fear being behind the wheel or getting bit by a poison spidermonkey first.
Click to expand...
Hey why bring my research spidermonkeyratasaurus into this. Lol
 
Jiigzz said:
They're also communist, so you have to take tat into account.

Communist countries are known to be like that. Any evidence for non-communist countries?
Click to expand...

Communist party took over due to part opportunity of the war against Japan in which the Japanese ran all over unarmed Chinese civilians and commited many atrocities, mass rape and genocide along with Chan-Kai-sheks nationalist party and its corruption. Then of couse the Communist party commited the genocide on 70-100 unarmed civilians afterwards so it got worse after they got "liberated."

Also, the US government and the CIA put the Communists in power when they helped them defeat the Nationalists, the same US government who wants to take our guns away because they "care" about people yet put in a genocidalist dictator in 1 of many countries as where again 70-100 million unarmed people died as a result here in China due to US compassionate interventionist policies not to get into all the other humanitarian policies, regime changes and wars spread through the globe. Take my guns!!!!!!!!
 
So you're afraid to give up your guns because of an event that happened in China during war?

I'm so confused. You realize that the likelihood of a land based invasion of mainland USA is impractical, and not likely to occur? Your military is too great for that.
 
DemntedCowboy said:
That part is weird. Cause the news said he took his own life, but the LVPD Chief of Police said they shot him when they stormed the room? Maybe a miss quote?
Click to expand...

I think a lot of news agencies want to be the first to report and will run with quotes from anybody whether they're official or not (how many news sources reported Tom Petty died several hours before he actually did). Or he shot himself and they double-checked his work!
 
Jiigzz said:
So you're afraid to give up your guns because of an event that happened in China during war?

I'm so confused. You realize that the likelihood of a land based invasion of mainland USA is impractical, and not likely to occur? Your military is too great for that.
Click to expand...

It’s called history and not repeating mistakes of the weak, and what happened in China w/ mass genocide has happened after the war.

Besides your just fear mongering getting killed by a gun in the USA which is almost impossible. I’m worried more about dangerous things such as traffic and figuring out why so many are on meds especially our youth.
 
ax1 said:
It’s called history and not repeating mistakes of the weak, and what happened in China w/ mass genocide has happened after the war.

Besides your just fear mongering getting killed by a gun in the USA which is almost impossible. I’m worried more about traffic.
Click to expand...
Jiigzz it happened once. Why cant someone study that event and say ok this is what not to do? Pretty sure all of Europe has been invaded more than once. Lol
 
ax1 said:
It’s called history and what happened in China has happened after the war.

Besides your just fear mongering getting killed by a gun in the USA is almost impossible. I’m worried more about traffic.
Click to expand...

1. The Las Vegas mass shooting wasn't the only mass shooting in America on Sunday
Some 13,000 miles away in Lawrence, just outside the University of Kansas in Kansas, two men and a woman were killed and a further two people injured in a mass shooting incident.

2. Some 346 people are estimated to have been killed in American mass shootings this year. This compared to 432 in 2016, and 369 in 2015 - more than one person for every day of the year.

3. Between 2001 and 2013, 406,496 people died as a result of gun violence in America according to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.

Invalid Link Removed

4. There has been 1500 Mass Shootings since Sandy Hook

5. States with more guns, have more gun deaths. And this trend also shows for other countries with more guns

Invalid Link Removed

And so on.
 
Invalid Link Removed

You're more likely to die in a car crash than be murdered by a gun. In 2014, an average of 96 people died EVERY DAY. Nearly ten times as many people die because of a doctor's mistake than are killed by guns also. But we don't have people calling for legislation to curb either of those.
 
Jiigzz said:
1. The Las Vegas mass shooting wasn't the only mass shooting in America on Sunday
Some 13,000 miles away in Lawrence, just outside the University of Kansas in Kansas, two men and a woman were killed and a further two people injured in a mass shooting incident.

2. Some 346 people are estimated to have been killed in American mass shootings this year. This compared to 432 in 2016, and 369 in 2015 - more than one person for every day of the year.

3. Between 2001 and 2013, 406,496 people died as a result of gun violence in America according to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.

Invalid Link Removed

4. There has been 1500 Mass Shootings since Sandy Hook

5. States with more guns, have more gun deaths. And this trend also shows for other countries with more guns

Invalid Link Removed

And so on.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, do you happen to have some statistics comparing countries by overall/total homicide? A more compelling argument, and one I do not know if I holds true or not, would be if states with more guns and/or less restrictive gun laws have more total homicide than states with less guns and/or more restrictive laws. Then we can check the same by country. If the argument against guns is that they make it easier to kill, and kill numerous people, then they should also increase total homicide rates, not just gun homicide rates. People who argue against stricter gun control say that people will just kill each other in a different way. Show the statistics that indicate this is not true, that states with less guns and more restrictive gun laws have less overall homicide. This, if true, would be quite a compelling argument IMO. Someone killed by a gun is no more dead than someone killed by any number of things, so I am more interested in total homicides if safety and life is truly the topic of discussion.
 
youngandfree said:
Invalid Link Removed

You're more likely to die in a car crash than be murdered by a gun. In 2014, an average of 96 people died EVERY DAY. Nearly ten times as many people die because of a doctor's mistake than are killed by guns also. But we don't have people calling for legislation to curb either of those.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, so we are required to pay insurance for motor vehicles and physicians have to pay malpractice insurance. So you're saying that gun owners should have to pay yearly insurance on their weapons? That's actually a really interesting idea and fits perfectly with the 2nd amendment.
 
Jiigzz said:
1. The Las Vegas mass shooting wasn't the only mass shooting in America on Sunday
Some 13,000 miles away in Lawrence, just outside the University of Kansas in Kansas, two men and a woman were killed and a further two people injured in a mass shooting incident.

2. Some 346 people are estimated to have been killed in American mass shootings this year. This compared to 432 in 2016, and 369 in 2015 - more than one person for every day of the year.

3. Between 2001 and 2013, 406,496 people died as a result of gun violence in America according to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.

Invalid Link Removed

4. There has been 1500 Mass Shootings since Sandy Hook

5. States with more guns, have more gun deaths. And this trend also shows for other countries with more guns

Invalid Link Removed

And so on.
Click to expand...

400 thousand out of 300 million in over a decade many of them being gang deaths and suicide which honestly isn’t a concern of mine.

Where is the chart that shows how many mass shooters were on prescription meds?

You have a better chance of getting hit with lightening or winning the lottery than dying of gun violence.

Oh, and how many of those shootings took place on gun free or heavily restricted gun zones such as where I live or Chicago and how many took places in states with lax open carry laws such as Vermont?

Did you know crime and death went down in Detroit after the police chief called on civilians to bear arms and protect themselves?

Where is the chart where lives were saved due to armed civilians?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Hmmm, so we are required to pay insurance for motor vehicles and physicians have to pay malpractice insurance. So you're saying that gun owners should have to pay yearly insurance on their weapons? That's actually a really interesting idea and fits perfectly with the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
As a gun owner I dont agree with that Idea. Again, most that commit crime with a gun are not obtaining these qeapons legally. So why should law abiding citizens pay for something. That gang bangers are doing for free. Thats kinda like Michigan's no fault insurance. We all pay higher insurance because some people dont pay insurance at all
 
So at the end of the day, why does it matter how many more/less deaths occur in another country or if squirrels cause more deaths? Why is it so hard to say people are dying, we need to at least have an honest discussion because this continues to escalate? Why can't somebody be upset about car deaths and gun deaths?!?! Why choose one? Work on solving both.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Hmmm, so we are required to pay insurance for motor vehicles and physicians have to pay malpractice insurance. So you're saying that gun owners should have to pay yearly insurance on their weapons? That's actually a really interesting idea and fits perfectly with the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

the cca [concealed carry association] sells insurance to cover you if you are involved in a shooting....just sayin
 
How about we have 1,999 countries with no 2nd amendment and only 1 USA and let’s see how that turns out. People are free to go where they want no borders

All I ask for is just one measly country and maybe generations down the road we can see that country prosper and have the longest running democracy in history :) I hope some day
 
DemntedCowboy said:
As a gun owner I dont agree with that Idea. Again, most that commit crime with a gun are not obtaining these qeapons legally. So why should law abiding citizens pay for something. That gang bangers are doing for free
Click to expand...

I get that, but where are those weapons coming from. Sure some are stolen, but most are obtained legally and then passed off illegally. As for fairness, I haven't had an accident ever, I just recently got a speeding ticket for the first time in like a decade, and I drive a 2008 car, yet my car insurance is insane because of other drivers who can't drive properly (nearly every person in Dallas) and drivers who don't have insurance. I'm not taking a firm stance on this, just using the analogy.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
So at the end of the day, why does it matter how many more/less deaths occur in another country or if squirrels cause more deaths? Why is it so hard to say people are dying, we need to at least have an honest discussion because this continues to escalate? Why can't somebody be upset about car deaths and gun deaths?!?! Why choose one? Work on solving both.
Click to expand...

I am for sure good point! My focus would be more gun education and training, ending the war on drugs, longer sentences, prescription drug crisis, restoring the bill of rights and constitution and having accountability when our elected officials violate their oath of office, ending the fed, reforming the economy etc....we can do many things to help lower violence.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Out of curiosity, do you happen to have some statistics comparing countries by overall/total homicide? A more compelling argument, and one I do not know if I holds true or not, would be if states with more guns and/or less restrictive gun laws have more total homicide than states with less guns and/or more restrictive laws. Then we can check the same by country. If the argument against guns is that they make it easier to kill, and kill numerous people, then they should also increase total homicide rates, not just gun homicide rates. People who argue against stricter gun control say that people will just kill each other in a different way. Show the statistics that indicate this is not true, that states with less guns and more restrictive gun laws have less overall homicide. This, if true, would be quite a compelling argument IMO. Someone killed by a gun is no more dead than someone killed by any number of things, so I am more interested in total homicides if safety and life is truly the topic of discussion.
Click to expand...

I would also incorporate overall crime stats as well such as robberies, home invasion, rape, etc...
 
in 2015 10,265 people died in alcohol impaired driving crashes....in all states 1st offense drunk driving is a misdemeanor and punishable BY UP TO 6 MONTHS in jail---in reality most 1st offenders never serve jail time.

on average a drunk driver will drive impaired 80 times before their 1st arrest.

86% of homicides were carried out under the influence of alcohol.
 
ax1 said:
I would also incorporate overall crime stats as well such as robberies, home invasion, rape, etc...
Click to expand...
Good point. Like I said, it's nuanced. You also can't extrapolate that all differences in crime/murder/etc from one country to another is due to guns or the lack thereof. Starting by comparing states within the US may be a good place, as the laws/culture/etc is more directly comparable than the US and another country.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Hmmm, so we are required to pay insurance for motor vehicles and physicians have to pay malpractice insurance. So you're saying that gun owners should have to pay yearly insurance on their weapons? That's actually a really interesting idea and fits perfectly with the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

You're not the first anti gunner to propose that.
 
thebigt said:
in 2015 10,265 people died in alcohol impaired driving crashes....in all states 1st offense drunk driving is a misdemeanor and punishable BY UP TO 6 MONTHS in jail---in reality most 1st offenders never serve jail time.

on average a drunk driver will drive impaired 80 times before their 1st arrest.

86% of homicides were carried out under the influence of alcohol.
Click to expand...

You stop that right now!!! lol
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I get that, but where are those weapons coming from. Sure some are stolen, but most are obtained legally and then passed off illegally. As for fairness, I haven't had an accident ever, I just recently got a speeding ticket for the first time in like a decade, and I drive a 2008 car, yet my car insurance is insane because of other drivers who can't drive properly (nearly every person in Dallas) and drivers who don't have insurance. I'm not taking a firm stance on this, just using the analogy.
Click to expand...
Most of those guns come from a trunk in an alley way with no serial number.
 
ax1 said:
Oh, and how many of those shootings took place on gun free or heavily restricted gun zones such as where I live or Chicago and how many took places in states with lax open carry laws such as Vermont??
Click to expand...

Or New Hampshire, where I'm moving next month :). Not that I will, but i am more than welcomed to walk around with my 9 in a holster on my hip just going to get coffee in the morning if I so please. I also believe it has THE lowest crime rate out of any state in the US if im not mistaken.
 
DemntedCowboy said:
Most of those guns come from a trunk in an alley way with no serial number.
Click to expand...

No, I understand that, but they weren't grown on a tree. Somebody initially obtained them legally and I feel like you're skipping over that part. Isn't it possible if there was more regulation on the legal side, that would prevent some (not all) from funneling over to the illegal side?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top