BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

Police in Delaware are searching for a suspect who shot a man over a dollar.

The shooting happened at about 7:30 p.m. Wednesday on North Spruce Street in Wilmington.

According to investigators, a 22-year-old male was lost and was standing outside his car when he was approached by the suspect.

Police say the suspect asked the victim for a dollar and when the victim refused, the suspect displayed a handgun and shot the victim in the lower part of his body.

The suspect took an undisclosed amount of cash from the victim and then ran away on foot.

The victim was taken to by a personal car to Wilmington Hospital in an unknown condition.

The suspect is described as a black male, between 50-60 years-of-age, wearing a black-hooded sweatshirt, a dark cap and jeans.

I think I could fight off a 50 year old man without a gun.

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-01-04 19:21:12)

Adams_BJ wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

Narupug wrote:

A man walks into a school and kills 30 kids with his bare hands?

A gun is the easiest tool to use to kill. Which is why so many people put the blame on a lifeless hunk of metal. It is not the gun that kills, it is the person that pulls the trigger. Without a person to do so, a gun is a lifeless hunk of metal with lifeless hunks of brass inside of it.

you seem awfully intent on defending this hunk of inanimate metal with every cell of your body. But, its my RIGHT to have this chunk of metal! PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDSSSSS

I'm going into a trade involving firearms, so having them banned kind of hurts business. So defending them is necessary for me.

Narupug wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

It's more relevant than uzique going batshit nuts over some stupid quip about his meaningless life.

The whole argument of firearms needed to be banned because firearms are evil is just horrendous and unnecessary. People are just afraid of them because when in the wrong hands, they will kill. So they outright attempt to ban them for everybody. Including those who use them for sport, which ruins a lot of people's enjoyment. (My own included.)

I don't think anyone is proposing banning them completely.

I live in MA, they propose it constantly.

I have nothing against guns, guns are fun. I just find it funny that the only civilised country that seems to have an issue with increases safety and introducing laws affecting the responsibilities that come with gun ownership is the US

Macbeth wrote:

Police in Delaware are searching for a suspect who shot a man over a dollar.

The shooting happened at about 7:30 p.m. Wednesday on North Spruce Street in Wilmington.

According to investigators, a 22-year-old male was lost and was standing outside his car when he was approached by the suspect.

Police say the suspect asked the victim for a dollar and when the victim refused, the suspect displayed a handgun and shot the victim in the lower part of his body.

The suspect took an undisclosed amount of cash from the victim and then ran away on foot.

The victim was taken to by a personal car to Wilmington Hospital in an unknown condition.

The suspect is described as a black male, between 50-60 years-of-age, wearing a black-hooded sweatshirt, a dark cap and jeans.

I think I could fight off a 50 year old man without a gun.

Not if he pulls a gun on you.

UnkleRukus wrote:

Narupug wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

A gun is the easiest tool to use to kill. Which is why so many people put the blame on a lifeless hunk of metal. It is not the gun that kills, it is the person that pulls the trigger. Without a person to do so, a gun is a lifeless hunk of metal with lifeless hunks of brass inside of it.

you seem awfully intent on defending this hunk of inanimate metal with every cell of your body. But, its my RIGHT to have this chunk of metal! PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDSSSSS

I'm going into a trade involving firearms, so having them banned kind of hurts business. So defending them is necessary for me.

I live in MA, they propose it constantly.

For example?

Have you ever talked to someone from Amherst, or Northampton, or Province town?

If you have, you'll know where I'm coming from.

Also, I'm not against safety regulations or certain restrictions. Restricting automatics, I can understand, but banning ARs because of some specific features is absolutely retarded.

That is true, but no one here is suggesting it.

why dont you just remove his limitation

At least 5 rugers

-Sh1fty- wrote:

There's a huge skunk overpopulation here in my area and you smell skunk everywhere you go if you live on the hill side of the town instead of the coastal area. I've shot a few animals with pellet guns but those don't do crap so a high powered rifle would be nice.

WTF are you doing shooting animals with pellet guns? It will injure or cripple them and is straightforward animal cruelty.

What do you think going Jack Bauer on the skunks is going to achieve? I think you, a denseley populated area and a high power rifle really wouldn't mix well.

I really don't want to have to shoot anybody. I will if I absolutely have to though. If I do have to shoot somebody I'd leave the scene though.

Why would you already be planning to leave the scene?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-01-05 05:13:56)

Thinking about it more and more lately, unfortunately there's not much we can really do about it.  Countries like Switzlerland and Canada have just as many guns but more homogenous cultures.  The reality is that Americans always have and always will be deeply divided, whether it's regional or cultural or racial conflict.  I just don't see how any meaningful form of gun control is feasible, let alone what effect it will have on the outcomes.  I do however think it's stupid when people elect politicians who declare support for free trade and then want to build a wall along our entire border.  The fact that we let so many unregistered weapons cross into Mexico is one of the few things I think we could change, by preventing the sale itself from happening.  Other than that, this problem is here to stay, and the only thing which will make it better in my mind is cultural progress and a better economy.

The TL DR version is that only a federal approach can actually have any meaningful impact.  It's similar to the maurijuana debate, once Colorado legalizes it suddenly it becomes a hotbed area for federal law enforcement.  There's no way banning guns in one city, let alone a state, can actually have any impact.  The prices go up and people just ship it in from another area.  That means the only way to do it is through the federal government.  And if you hadn't noticed recently, it appears we may not even be able to agree to pay our bills, let alone tackle one of the hottest hot button issues.  Waste of time imo

Last edited by Spearhead (2013-01-05 05:37:13)

i don't know what homogeneity has to do with gun violence. the reason canada and switzerland (both racially diverse countries, though don't tell an american that; having a border with MEXICO is, of course, the world's #1 and sole immigration problem, just like the american civil war was the single greatest disaster in the western world up until the 19th century... right? right...) have less gun violence is because their cultures are less violent. no link of correlation or causation with homogeneity at all. people in canada own guns to hunt with, and for sport. people in america own guns because they are convinced the government are going to enslave them at any moment, and a civil-war militia will need to be roused. guns and violence do not occupy central places in canada and switzerland; they are just another 'thing' composing everyday, ordinary civilian life. in america, guns are put on this huge pedestal - what pro-gun nuts ostensibly call "the cawn-sti-tu-shun", though that was never what the document originally enshrined - and are given a massive symbolic (over-) value. and that is just what it is about, as rukus (unintentionally) highlighted with his (facile) point about guns being just a hunk of metal: in america, guns are privileged as symbols of your national identity, just as much as hamburgers and shitty cars are. and with lethal weapons put so at the forefront of your civilian and cultural life, of course they are going to be used a helluva lot more.

it has nothing to do with homogeneity. the ugly implication of your point is that it's all the non-christians and non-whites that are leading to gun crime. most of the gun-crime may in fact occur in black-deprived areas of major cities-- this much is true. but you are misreading those statistics with an ideological slant if you think it is anything to do with skin-colour or the heterogeneity that such a diverse mix creates. that gun crime results from poverty, and an underdog/gangsta culture that derives from such an economic set-up. poverty doesn't care what colour you are or what imaginary fairy in the sky you kneel to. so let's just draw a line under that silly reasoning that the american situation is "beyond help" because your country is somehow 'too (culturally and racially) diverse and complex' to legislate effectively.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-05 06:39:43)

aynrandroolz wrote:

i don't know what homogeneity has to do with gun violence. the reason canada and switzerland (both racially diverse countries, though don't tell an american that; having a border with MEXICO is, of course, the world's #1 and sole immigration problem, just like the american civil war was the single greatest disaster in the western world up until the 19th century... right? right...) have less gun violence is because their cultures are less violent. no link of correlation or causation with homogeneity at all. people in canada own guns to hunt with, and for sport. people in america own guns because they are convinced the government are going to enslave them at any moment, and a civil-war militia will need to be roused. guns and violence do not occupy central places in canada and switzerland; they are just another 'thing' composing everyday, ordinary civilian life. in america, guns are put on this huge pedestal - what pro-gun nuts ostensibly call "the cawn-sti-tu-shun", though that was never what the document originally enshrined - and are given a massive symbolic (over-) value. and that is just what it is about, as rukus (unintentionally) highlighted with his (facile) point about guns being just a hunk of metal: in america, guns are privileged as symbols of your national identity, just as much as hamburgers and shitty cars are. and with lethal weapons put so at the forefront of your civilian and cultural life, of course they are going to be used a helluva lot more.

it has nothing to do with homogeneity. the ugly implication of your point is that it's all the non-christians and non-whites that are leading to gun crime. most of the gun-crime may in fact occur in black-deprived areas of major cities-- this much is true. but you are misreading those statistics with an ideological slant if you think it is anything to do with skin-colour or the heterogeneity that such a diverse mix creates. that gun crime results from poverty, and an underdog/gangsta culture that derives from such an economic set-up. poverty doesn't care what colour you are or what imaginary fairy in the sky you kneel to. so let's just draw a line under that silly reasoning that the american situation is "beyond help" because your country is somehow 'too (culturally and racially) diverse and complex' to legislate effectively.

My point about the Civil War besides being devastating was that it was a conflict that was never entirely resolved.  De facto slavery still existed in the South well into 20th century and only in the 1960's was there any meaningful advancement in African American rights.  My point is that the United States is still in many ways still at war with itself, white against black, north against south, state vs. federal.  The fact that you could not see this was why I brought it up in the first place tells me you don't quite understand our politics -- understandable, seeing as how youre from another country.  But you misinterpret the fact that I am saying it's not politically feasible and grouping me within the conservative right.  I've argued on here before that the drug war is nothing but a continuation of the Jim Crow policies.  Does that make me a racist?  Fuck off.

Spearhead wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

i don't know what homogeneity has to do with gun violence. the reason canada and switzerland (both racially diverse countries, though don't tell an american that; having a border with MEXICO is, of course, the world's #1 and sole immigration problem, just like the american civil war was the single greatest disaster in the western world up until the 19th century... right? right...) have less gun violence is because their cultures are less violent. no link of correlation or causation with homogeneity at all. people in canada own guns to hunt with, and for sport. people in america own guns because they are convinced the government are going to enslave them at any moment, and a civil-war militia will need to be roused. guns and violence do not occupy central places in canada and switzerland; they are just another 'thing' composing everyday, ordinary civilian life. in america, guns are put on this huge pedestal - what pro-gun nuts ostensibly call "the cawn-sti-tu-shun", though that was never what the document originally enshrined - and are given a massive symbolic (over-) value. and that is just what it is about, as rukus (unintentionally) highlighted with his (facile) point about guns being just a hunk of metal: in america, guns are privileged as symbols of your national identity, just as much as hamburgers and shitty cars are. and with lethal weapons put so at the forefront of your civilian and cultural life, of course they are going to be used a helluva lot more.

it has nothing to do with homogeneity. the ugly implication of your point is that it's all the non-christians and non-whites that are leading to gun crime. most of the gun-crime may in fact occur in black-deprived areas of major cities-- this much is true. but you are misreading those statistics with an ideological slant if you think it is anything to do with skin-colour or the heterogeneity that such a diverse mix creates. that gun crime results from poverty, and an underdog/gangsta culture that derives from such an economic set-up. poverty doesn't care what colour you are or what imaginary fairy in the sky you kneel to. so let's just draw a line under that silly reasoning that the american situation is "beyond help" because your country is somehow 'too (culturally and racially) diverse and complex' to legislate effectively.

My point about the Civil War besides being devastating was that it was a conflict that was never entirely resolved.  De facto slavery still existed in the South well into 20th century and only in the 1960's was there any meaningful advancement in African American rights.  My point is that the United States is still in many ways still at war with itself, white against black, north against south, state vs. federal.  The fact that you could not see this was why I brought it up in the first place tells me you don't quite understand our politics -- understandable, seeing as how youre from another country.  But you misinterpret the fact that I am saying it's not politically feasible and grouping me within the conservative right.  I've argued on here before that the drug war is nothing but a continuation of the Jim Crow policies.  Does that make me a racist?  Fuck off.

i would say that action movies and violent video-games probably have more to do with a casual/passive attitude to violence than does the 'unresolved' ideological fractures of the civil war. you are making gun crime ideological by invoking the civil war, white vs. black, state vs. federal. and i believe that action movies and violent video-games have absolutely diddly squat to do with gun violence. if you mean to say that there is still ideological anti-federal sentiment about gun legislation... well then, yes, that's obvious. a 'national' gun ban would be a hard thing to politically push through. however that's not the CAUSE of your gun massacres, that's part of the technical method of resisting gun laws. that's putting the cart before the horse. the reason you have so much gun crime is because so many high powered guns are accessible to so many loose-minded individuals. i don't know what the civil war has to do with that, nor how it really matters at all in solving the problem.

-Whiteroom- wrote:

If Jesus had a gun, he'd still be alive.

He is still alive, he just ascended to heaven...