Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Mall shooting in Oregon

Posted Dec 14, '12 at 4:31pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

Gun control would not have prevented the shooting. Criminals, as a rule, don't follow the law. It's part of the job description.

not in this case. in others it still could.
i'm not going to do the same debate again as i did yesterday. so plz. do not reply.

 

Posted Dec 14, '12 at 5:00pm

hojoko

hojoko

556 posts

not in this case. in others it still could.
i'm not going to do the same debate again as i did yesterday. so plz. do not reply.

I'm glad you won't repeat that debate, as your argument was incredibly flawed. Anyways, the topic is mass shootings, and your argument for gun control was focused on robberies and other smaller crimes, so it wasn't exactly relevant, and neither is the comment you just made.

My point here, as you actually just said, is that gun control won't prevent these horrific crimes, and that SSTG was blaming the NRA for the choices of a single individual who was most likely unrelated and would commit the crime regardless of the availability of legal firearms

 

Posted Dec 14, '12 at 6:26pm

BurnKush420

BurnKush420

102 posts

this shouldnt be a debate about gun control, everyone has their own opinion whether it be right or wrong. people are going to die no matter what. hell, lets just ban knives too while were at it. im sure a lot less people would die from stabbings. lets ban penises too, because im sure a lot less women would get *****

 

Posted Dec 14, '12 at 8:00pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

I'm glad you won't repeat that debate, as your argument was incredibly flawed. Anyways, the topic is mass shootings, and your argument for gun control was focused on robberies and other smaller crimes, so it wasn't exactly relevant, and neither is the comment you just made.

whatever. you guys just keep shooting.
the less, the better.

 

Posted Dec 14, '12 at 10:07pm

Jacen96

Jacen96

2,150 posts

One: According to the article, they were not his guns, so you can't say that banning guns would have prevented this, as he would have found some somewhere.

Two: I fail to see how the NRA is involved.

Three: Let's all just forget the bill of rights, the founding fathers weren't in their right minds, but were being controlled by the NRA.

It is sad yes, but I don't think it was preventable, except by locking up/killing the guy before he committed the crime, which is also illegal.

~~~Darth Caedus

 

Posted Dec 14, '12 at 10:12pm

killersup10

killersup10

1,784 posts

Another gun loving sick **** murdered innocent people and this time there's many kids dead.  Great job America, just let the pawn shops sell guns to anybody and it'll keep happening. We need to call our congressmen and bring down the NRA first, then ban all the ****ing guns for good!

You do realize that there is a background check on every legal sell of a firearm when the person buys it right?

whatever. you guys just keep shooting.
the less, the better.

Glad to hear that some of you guys sound disgusted to even think about the United States. Like it is all of America's fault that there are a random killing spree. How would you prefer America does it? Stick everybody to chains and completely order them how their lives will go?

 

Posted Dec 14, '12 at 11:27pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

so you can't say that banning guns would have prevented this, as he would have found some somewhere.

actualy is this a reason to ban them.
if guns were illegal than he couldn't just "found some somewhere"
he would have needed to contact a dealer 1st. and if he did so. then it were his own guns and he would be a "criminal" for just owning them already.
and if the police would follow the dealers activity, than this could have been prevented.

Stick everybody to chains and completely order them how their lives will go?

everything that it takes to change the violent part of the culture.
starting whit closing the NRA. and only guns allowed under heavy control and bureaucracy.(not only a simple background check) + lots more police following the dealers activity. as for the police themselves, they have to learn to shoot at legs and not the body/head.

 

Posted Dec 14, '12 at 11:30pm

loco5

loco5

1,289 posts

and if the police would follow the dealers activity, than this could have been prevented.

if you're relying on the police for everything, you're missing out on something, we can't afford to put a policeman on every dealer, let alone paying to find every dealer.

shoot at legs and not the body/head.

No. Hands use guns, hands will continue to use guns unless something severs the connection, be it a shot to the hand, or to the head. We shouldn't risk the lives of police just because they could possibly save a life

 

Posted Dec 14, '12 at 11:49pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

if you're relying on the police for everything, you're missing out on something, we can't afford to put a policeman on every dealer, let alone paying to find every dealer.

a team to find them and solo or groups of 2/3 cops following multiple dealers from a distant place.
if the amount of dealers become to great. then arrest some and give them some jail time. meanwhile focus on the remaining and new dealers.

(i'm not saying that it would have prevented it. only that it could)

No. Hands use guns

i think most will drop the weapen and grab whatever spot they have been hit.
but that line was a bit of a extra. i dont mind to drop it.

 

Posted Dec 15, '12 at 3:07am

handlerfan

handlerfan

192 posts

I think that it's very bad that as we reel from this shooting there is a shooting in New England where a greater number of people were killed than in Oregon.
If you take way all the hoops a law abiding citizen is expected to go through to get a firearm, it will make it easier for guns to fall into criminal hands. Take away all gun regulation and the bad boys will split their sides with laughter.

 
Reply to Mall shooting in Oregon

You must be logged in to post a reply!