Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

While Hollywood glorifies violence, war, guns and death, they blame conservatives at the NRA for having the audacity to stand up for the second amendment and chastise anyone who doesn't support banning assault rifles.

When will Hollywood and the liberal democrats call to end making violent movies about death and destruction at the hands of guns?

Ah the ol' "it's the movies" fault.

Its like being back in the 80's

Wait til you find out about these new fangled "video games"

How is that any different than "it's the gun's fault"?

Movies and video games are not real.

Also of note, American Rifleman (the NRA's consumer magazine) back in 2013/14 ran a 'Coolest Guns Movies' list. So the NRA has no room to talk; like none here.

/thread

Originally posted by jaden101
Ah the ol' "it's the movies" fault.

Its like being back in the 80's

Wait til you find out about these new fangled "video games"

So industries that glorify violence and pay people millions to replicate it on screen have no consequences?

Originally posted by Robtard
Movies and video games are not real.

Also of note, American Rifleman (the NRA's consumer magazine) back in 2013/14 ran a 'Coolest Guns Movies' list. So the NRA has no room to talk; like none here.

/thread

**** off

I hope he means they're fictional, because movies and games actually exist. so they're definitely real.

Hurrdurrr

I guess no one has ever grown up to be anything they see on TV.

Basketball Player
Astronaut
Movie Star

Etc.

What I take even less seriously is these imbeciles fly around with armed security. Then lecture others who can't afford the luxury about guns.

Originally posted by Silent Master
How is that any different than "it's the gun's fault"?

Because I don't think any mass killers have walked into schools and murdered people by throwing dvds at them.

Originally posted by Surtur
What I take even less seriously is these imbeciles fly around with armed security. Then lecture others who can't afford the luxury about guns.

You mean like George Clooney?

Originally posted by jaden101
Because I don't think any mass killers have walked into schools and murdered people by throwing dvds at them.

Throw away comment.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hurrdurrr

Originally posted by jaden101
Because I don't think any mass killers have walked into schools and murdered people by throwing dvds at them.

Has a gun ever self animated and gone on a killing spree?

Originally posted by jaden101
Because I don't think any mass killers have walked into schools and murdered people by throwing dvds at them.

So it's the guns fault and not the killers?

Originally posted by Surtur
Has a gun ever self animated and gone on a killing spree?
^ can't see the difference between a gun and a dvd

Clearly the NRA makes movies based on killing people with guns.

Pathetic libtards

Hysterical teens are gonna debate some pro gun people like Dana Loesch on CNN lol.

How does this not end badly? It doesn't matter if the pro gun people make good points.

CNN lol. I stopped watching that crap, best decision of my life.

So kids are hyper partisans in high school now? Amazed this nation still has the lights on.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So it's the guns fault and not the killers?

All other things being equal, if one person with intent to kill lots of people goes into a school armed with a semi automatic rifle and corresponding ammunition and another person equally intent on mass slaughter goes into a school armed with a bag full of dvds, who's going to kill more people?

It's like some "townhall" meeting. I foresee a bunch of hysteria and these kids get torn apart because they don't actually know anything.

Originally posted by Surtur
Hysterical teens are gonna debate some pro gun people like Dana Loesch on CNN lol.

How does this not end badly? It doesn't matter if the pro gun people make good points.

She's pulling a Tucker Carlson and then some, he picks low hanging fruit to debate like first-second year college students because otherwise he gets schooled, she's going after high-schoolers. Of course someone like you would see this as some great accomplishment. Lolz, what a retard.

Originally posted by jaden101
All other things being equal, if one person with intent to kill lots of people goes into a school armed with a semi automatic rifle and corresponding ammunition and another person equally intent on mass slaughter goes into a school armed with a bag full of dvds, who's going to kill more people?

You didn't even tell us what movies are on the dvds. Not cool.

Originally posted by jaden101
All other things being equal, if one person with intent to kill lots of people goes into a school armed with a semi automatic rifle and corresponding ammunition and another person equally intent on mass slaughter goes into a school armed with a bag full of dvds, who's going to kill more people?

Is that a yes, it's the gun's fault?

Originally posted by Robtard
She's pulling a Tucker Carlson and then some, he picks low hanging fruit to debate like first-second year college students because otherwise he gets schooled, she's going after high-schoolers. Of course someone like you would see this as some great accomplishment. Lolz, what a retard.

It's gonna be HILARIOUS. They gonna get owned, but cuz they act all emotional people are gonna pretend otherwise.

And who will have left this kids so uninformed? Lol you, your side.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's gonna be HILARIOUS. They gonna get owned, but cuz they act all emotional people are gonna pretend otherwise.

And who will have left this kids so uninformed? Lol you, your side.

^ See?

Originally posted by Robtard
^ See?

Nobody forced them to do this. They got all self righteous. Now they are gonna make fools of themselves.

Who knew being in proximity to a shooting didn't bestow some magical mantle of firearm knowledge?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Is that a yes, it's the gun's fault?

Liberals don't blame people, they blame organizations and things.

People are never accountable

Originally posted by Silent Master
Is that a yes, it's the gun's fault?

I like where you are going with this, let's also make grenades legal because we know they won't be to blame for the violence. I mean it's not like they have a consciousness so we can't hold them accountable for being so easy to use and cause mass destruction.

So since alcohol is legal and you can drink and drive and kill people why is that not a banned substance?

Originally posted by snowdragon
I like where you are going with this, let's also make grenades legal because we know they won't be to blame for the violence. I mean it's not like they have a consciousness so we can't hold them accountable for being so easy to use and cause mass destruction.

So you're on the side of it's the gun's fault?

One time this guy had a heart attack near me, suddenly I knew everything about heart disease.

Just like magic.

^ Surt's melting down again

Originally posted by Blindside12
So since alcohol is legal and you can drink and drive and kill people why is that not a banned substance?

A liberal non answerable question.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Surt's melting down again

^^This guy doesn't believe in magical knowledge transference, sap.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Is that a yes, it's the gun's fault?

I'm saying that guns have been used in 100% of gun massacres in schools and dvds have been used in 0% of gun massacres in schools.

Originally posted by Blindside12
So since alcohol is legal and you can drink and drive and kill people why is that not a banned substance?

Oh boy, y'all stuck btw a rock and a hard place.

Originally posted by Surtur
You didn't even tell us what movies are on the dvds. Not cool.

A Serbian Film

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm saying that guns have been used in 100% of gun massacres in schools and dvds have been used in 0% of gun massacres in schools.

Wait, people have also been used in 100% of massacres.

Hmm.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm saying that guns have been used in 100% of gun massacres in schools and dvds have been used in 0% of gun massacres in schools.

So it's the gun's fault?

Hey Silent did you know liberals never called for a weapons ban when that maniac gunned down a republican congressman in DC?

Surt, Quick Question. If guns are so bad why does Hollywood keep making movies about them.

Why don't they commite to not making movies about guns at all?

Originally posted by Blindside12
Surt, Quick Question. If guns are so bad why does Hollywood keep making movies about them.

Why don't they commite to not making movies about guns at all?

Well, they need money to pay their armed guards

If true, I'm sure they just "forgot".

Originally posted by Silent Master
So it's the gun's fault?

I'm saying that on the blame scale for gun massacres that guns would be higher up than movies.

Liberal Utopia: A society of zero personal accountability

Originally posted by Silent Master
So it's the gun's fault?

They are obviously the tool of choice for when you need to kill a lot of people quickly.

Let's not be sophomoric with "is it an inanimate object's fault." I'm not for gun bans, I'm also not for the answer my kid would give without realizing cause and effect.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm saying that on the blame scale for gun massacres that guns would be higher up than movies.

Ok, but my question was. is it the gun's fault?

Why isn't alcohol banned then?

Originally posted by snowdragon
They are obviously the tool of choice for when you need to kill a lot of people quickly.

Let's not be sophomoric with "is it an inanimate object's fault." I'm not for gun bans, I'm also not for the answer my kid would give without realizing cause and effect.

So guns are the cause?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Ok, but my question was. is it the gun's fault?

Yes, it is.

Wait, this IS Stephen Kings Maximum Overdrive, correct?

88,000 deaths a year from the old bottle.

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

Libtards: Ban GUNS!!

@Blindside12

Your views are thought-provoking.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Ok, but my question was. is it the gun's fault?

Because everything in your mind is entirely one thing's fault and entirely nothing else's.

Originally posted by jaden101
Because everything in your mind is entirely one thing's fault and entirely nothing else's.

Identifying the problem is the first step to solving it. you are interested in solving the problem, right?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
@Blindside12

Your views are thought-provoking.

Tyvm

Originally posted by Silent Master
Identifying the problem is the first step to solving it. you are interested in solving the problem, right?

I am. I've posted numerous times on how to increase safety, lesson the liklihood of shootings yet maintain people's rights to own guns. . Unfortunately people are so entrenched in their partisan ways that no one is interested in other's ideas.

Oddly enough that's exactly what a 15 year old girl said to Trump in the listening session. Wise girl.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Hey Silent did you know liberals never called for a weapons ban when that maniac gunned down a republican congressman in DC?

^ Actually 100% wrong again. Half of that thread was Surtur crying how the Governor of Virginia was trying to use yet another shooting as a platform to talk about gun control. Imagine that, wanting to talk about gun control/reform after another shooting. Crazy.

Originally posted by jaden101
I am. I've posted numerous times on how to increase safety, lesson the liklihood of shootings yet maintain people's rights to own guns. . Unfortunately people are so entrenched in their partisan ways that no one is interested in other's ideas.

Oddly enough that's exactly what a 15 year old girl said to Trump in the listening session. Wise girl.

I've seen you post ideas on how to restrict who and where guns can be used. is that what you mean about lessoning the liklihood of shootings?

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Actually 100% wrong again. Half of that thread was Surtur crying how the Governor of Virginia was trying to use yet another shooting as a platform to talk about gun control. Imagine that, wanting to talk about gun control/reform after another shooting. Crazy.

Well, yeah, imagine not wanting imbeciles spewing false talking points?

But no, cold medicine harder to get than assault rifles, etc etc.

But hey, now Trump is talking about it after a shooting, so it's no longer a low-class act, as you've stated several times. Special rules.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I've seen you post ideas on how to restrict who and where guns can be used. is that what you mean about lessoning the liklihood of shootings?

Yes. If a gun is unable to be fired in certain locations then that would lessen the liklihood of a shooting occurring in that area.

As I stated, this would be something that would take root over a period of time as new technologies replaced old.

Unfortunately most people don't seem to have the patience for long term solutions.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yes. If a gun is unable to be fired in certain locations then that would lessen the liklihood of a shooting occurring in that area.

As I stated, this would be something that would take root over a period of time as new technologies replaced old.

Unfortunately most people don't seem to have the patience for long term solutions.

They're also concerned that they may have to pay a bit more for their precious and that's just not worth it.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yes. If a gun is unable to be fired in certain locations then that would lessen the liklihood of a shooting occurring in that area.

As I stated, this would be something that would take root over a period of time as new technologies replaced old.

Unfortunately most people don't seem to have the patience for long term solutions.

None of that addresses the person committing the crime, so you're ok with attacks happening, so long as guns aren't being used?

Originally posted by Silent Master
None of that addresses the person committing the crime, so you're ok with attacks happening, so long as guns aren't being used?

The only REAL way to get rid of violence and attacks is to change human nature, the next thing is to analyze the weapons used to cause said violence.

Do you have a solution to change human nature/behavior, I'd like to hear it since that is the only logical progression in your discussion of not assigning blame to inanimate objects.

Originally posted by snowdragon
The only REAL way to get rid of violence and attacks is to change human nature, the next thing is to analyze the weapons used to cause said violence.

Do you have a solution to change human nature/behavior, I'd like to hear it since that is the only logical progression in your discussion of not assigning blame to inanimate objects.

So if you can't get rid of 100% of attacks, you shouldn't even try?

Originally posted by Silent Master
None of that addresses the person committing the crime, so you're ok with attacks happening, so long as guns aren't being used?

How does your brain even interpret that from anything I've posted?

You're clearly not interested in solutions. Just strawmanning nonsense.

Yes...yes I'm perfectly OK with someone going into a school with a flamethrower and burning kids alive. Or maybe some grenades.

Or maybe even a homemade dvd launcher that fires copies of Battlefield Earth through children's faces at supersonic speeds.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So if you can't get rid of 100% of attacks, you shouldn't even try?

Um, he's asking what can be done in regards to people, as that seems to be your angle.

Are you just being a time-waster-troll again?

Originally posted by Robtard
Um, he's asking what can be done in regards to people, as that seems to be your angle.

I hear genocide works.

#BanPeople

Originally posted by Robtard
Um, he's asking what can be done in regards to people, as that seems to be your angle.

Are you just being a time-waste-rtroll again?

And you are not considered a time wasting troll?

Originally posted by Blindside12
And you are not considered a time wasting troll?

Because my points quite often crush the nonsensical points of people like you

Originally posted by Robtard
Because my points quite often crush the nonsensical points of people like you

How is that any different then your nonsensical points conflicting with his and you calling him a time wasting troll?

Answer: He didn't really address Snow's question.

Are you done doing flips now.

Originally posted by jaden101
How does your brain even interpret that from anything I've posted?

You're clearly not interested in solutions. Just strawmanning nonsense.

Yes...yes I'm perfectly OK with someone going into a school with a flamethrower and burning kids alive. Or maybe some grenades.

Or maybe even a homemade dvd launcher that fires copies of Battlefield Earth through children's faces at supersonic speeds.

None of your ideas have addressed the person committing the crime, what else am I supposed to think?

Originally posted by jaden101
I hear genocide works.

#BanPeople

Just look at this:

Originally posted by Blindside12
Liberals don't blame people, they blame organizations and things.

People are never accountable

^ Literally from the guy who made this thread blaming real-life violence on films.

A no you, how cute.

Originally posted by Silent Master
None of your ideas have addressed the person committing the crime, what else am I supposed to think?

So you want a discussion on what?

Mental health treatment?

Education and the school system?

Nature vs nurture in regards to evil acts?

The evolution of psychopathy?

Is there any impetus to tackle even more complex and longer term problems?

Seems to me that the US is far better at coming up with technological solutions to problems than it is at fixing societal issues.

I'm trying to be pragmatic.

Could the US spend 20% of its military budget of socialised mental health care and still dominate the world in firepower while providing the most comprehensive mental health system the world has ever seen? Yes it could. Will it? There's more chance of them banning all guns.

Originally posted by jaden101
So you want a discussion on what?

Mental health treatment?

Education and the school system?

Nature vs nurture in regards to evil acts?

The evolution of psychopathy?

Is there any impetus to tackle even more complex and longer term problems?

Seems to me that the US is far better at coming up with technological solutions to problems than it is at fixing societal issues.

I'm trying to be pragmatic.

Could the US spend 20% of its military budget of socialised mental health care and still dominate the world in firepower while providing the most comprehensive mental health system the world has ever seen? Yes it could. Will it? There's more chance of them banning all guns.

In the same thread where you mentioned ways to restrict guns. I brought up making mental health checks part of regular medical visits and better background checks. my ideas directly addressed the people involved.

You aren't being pragmatic, even if your tech ideas stopped 100% of gun crimes. if the violent people are still out there, they'll just pick a different weapon. in the end all you would've done is change what weapon is used.

oh wow, no way, another dogshit thread from TI

https://i.imgur.com/olDL7GZ.jpg

Originally posted by Silent Master
In the same thread where you mentioned ways to restrict guns. I brought up making mental health checks part of regular medical visits and better background checks. my ideas directly addressed the people involved.

You aren't being pragmatic, even if your tech ideas stopped 100% of gun crimes. if the violent people are still out there, they'll just pick a different weapon. in the end all you would've done is change what weapon is used.

So then perhaps a mental health exam prior to purchasing a firearm? Or come up with a system that gives you a license to purchase firearms after the specific mental exam?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
oh wow, no way, another dogshit thread from TI

https://i.imgur.com/olDL7GZ.jpg

81 posts so far, your threads are usually dogshit though, so quit projecting and go look at your shitty xps tucked in a sad corner of your pathetic life.

Originally posted by Silent Master
In the same thread where you mentioned ways to restrict guns. I brought up making mental health checks part of regular medical visits and better background checks. my ideas directly addressed the people involved.

You aren't being pragmatic, even if your tech ideas stopped 100% of gun crimes. if the violent people are still out there, they'll just pick a different weapon. in the end all you would've done is change what weapon is used.

Part of being pragmatic is finding solutions that may stand a better chance of making it past partisan political barriers. Something tells me that a discussion on robust funding and implementation of rigorous mental health assessment and treatment might run into more than a few hurdles. Budgetary objections being one. Health insurance company lobbying being another. Admittedly I'm not an expert on the US's federally funded health care system and how it's implemented with medicare and medicaid.

So help a guy out with some info on implementation.

Originally posted by snowdragon
So then perhaps a mental health exam prior to purchasing a firearm? Or come up with a system that gives you a license to purchase firearms after the specific mental exam?

I'd only be ok with that if it applied to all rights.

counting my posts? lol what a loser.

Originally posted by jaden101
Part of being pragmatic is finding solutions that may stand a better chance of making it past partisan political barriers. Something tells me that a discussion on robust funding and implementation of rigorous mental health assessment and treatment might run into more than a few hurdles. Budgetary objections being one. Health insurance company lobbying being another. Admittedly I'm not an expert on the US's federally funded health care system and how it's implemented with medicare and medicaid.

So help a guy out with some info on implementation.

You really think you tech restrictions on guns have a better chance of making it past political barriers than things like improved background checks?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
counting my posts? lol what a loser.

Where did I say I counted your posts you idiot.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You really think you tech restrictions on guns have a better chance of making it past political barriers than things like improved background checks?

So it's just improved background checks now?

Are you going to just keep shifting the goalposts?

What would they even do in isolation? You could pass an improved background check now and even a rigorous mental health assessment and a year down the line suffer a mental breakdown and go on a killing spree.

What would an "improved" background check consist of?

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'd only be ok with that if it applied to all rights.

Sure, so how would you have that implemented?

Originally posted by jaden101
So it's just improved background checks now?

Are you going to just keep shifting the goalposts?

What would they even do in isolation? You could pass an improved background check now and even a rigorous mental health assessment and a year down the line suffer a mental breakdown and go on a killing spree.

What would an "improved" background check consist of?

So now you're complaining that I didn't re-list every single example and using it as an excuse to dodge my point by accusing of moving the goalposts. nice.


What makes you think your tech soultions will be easier to get passed than my ideas?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So now you're complaining that I didn't re-list every single example and using it as an excuse to dodge my point by accusing of moving the goalposts. nice.


What makes you think your tech soultions will be easier to get passed than my ideas?

Doesn't infringe on 2nd ammendment rights while also addressing gun safety concerns so can potentially solve the impasse of the current debate.
Several potential technologies don't have huge implementation costs.
Many solutions use existing low cost and proven technologies.
Doesn't come up against partisanship issues with regards to health care spending or socialised medicine which are just as entrenched as the gun debate.

But again, what would an improved background check consist of? Particularly in relation to the mental health assessments as I'm guessing current legislation already has a grasp on criminal background checks?

Would it mean a federal database of citizens mental health records? Would gun dealers get access to that information directly or would they simply get a yes or no based on a federal employee's interpretation of those records? Would those federal employees be medically trained in mental health areas themselves or would they simply cross reference the details of the applicant against the database and get an automated response based on predefined criteria? How often would someone get a check up in order to keep the records up to date? How many mental health assessors would be required and how qualified would they be to make diagnoses? Would there be a follow up in terms of treatment for someone rejected on mental health grounds? Could they receive treatment and eventually be removed from blacklisting? How would they prove their treatment and its effectiveness? Who would make those assessments? How does all that relate to the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act and other privacy concerns?

Or would these improved background checks go down a different route? Internet search history of applicants? Membership of certain organisations? Family members criminal history?

Ignoring the cost of things like setting up geofencing all over the country. In order for your ideas to work they'd have to be applied to every gun in the country. You have 0% chance of getting that passed right now.

Even if by some miracle it did pass(never happen), any safety feature could just be bypassed or disabled. do you really think people wouldn't figure out work-arounds and post them within a few days? hell in 30 seconds I found dozens of vids about how to bypass a phones fingerprint scanner.

If somehow the tech was impossible to hack/disable(Again, never happen) illegal guns would just start pouring over the boarders like drugs do now and we'd be right back where we started.

I think both of your ideas have merit.

Shame people will still be killed by bags of DVD's though.

So is this why all guns in movies now make wimpy pew pew noises?

So as to not hurt the FEE FEE's of the Snowflakes?

They should cancel the upcoming Deadpool movie.

It has guns in it I hear.

Originally posted by jaden101
Wait til you find out about these new fangled "video games"

Originally posted by Silent Master
Ignoring the cost of things like setting up geofencing all over the country. In order for your ideas to work they'd have to be applied to every gun in the country. You have 0% chance of getting that passed right now.

Even if by some miracle it did pass(never happen), any safety feature could just be bypassed or disabled. do you really think people wouldn't figure out work-arounds and post them within a few days? hell in 30 seconds I found dozens of vids about how to bypass a phones fingerprint scanner.

If somehow the tech was impossible to hack/disable(Again, never happen) illegal guns would just start pouring over the boarders like drugs do now and we'd be right back where we started.

Back to the old "if it doesn't work 100% of the time and from right this minute then there's no point" argument.

Great.

Originally posted by jaden101
Back to the old "if it doesn't work 100% of the time and from right this minute then there's no point" argument.

Great.

Exactly, it's the typical fall back point to those "let's have a discussion" people.

Let's ban high capacity magazines..........no way they'll bring more and still reload super fast.....

Ban bump stocks..........that won't fix anything

Ban silencers..........silencers don't kill people

Let's talk and find a solution.......let's do mental health checks prior to the purchase of firearms............ (you never explained this.)

So back to square one, let's find a solution to this problem we'll keep "talking about it"......(and of course the purpose of that circular jerk off is to find no solution.)

Originally posted by jaden101
Back to the old "if it doesn't work 100% of the time and from right this minute then there's no point" argument.

Great.

Not at all, but thanks for proving that you don't know how to read.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Exactly, it's the typical fall back point to those "let's have a discussion" people.

Let's ban high capacity magazines..........no way they'll bring more and still reload super fast.....

Ban bump stocks..........that won't fix anything

Ban silencers..........silencers don't kill people

Let's talk and find a solution.......let's do mental health checks prior to the purchase of firearms............ (you never explained this.)

So back to square one, let's find a solution to this problem we'll keep "talking about it"......(and of course the purpose of that circular jerk off is to find no solution.)

No, it's a strawman because that wasn't even close to the reason I gave for his idea not working. as for your idea of ban everything you don't like. you haven't actually given a valid reason for doing so.

I already said that I support mental health checks, just not as a prerequisite of exercising a consitutional right. but I'd be willing to support it, if it was applied to all consitutional rights.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not at all, but thanks for proving that you don't know how to read.

Staggering irony.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I already said that I support mental health checks, just not as a prerequisite of exercising a consitutional right. but I'd be willing to support it, if it was applied to all consitutional rights.

Yes, I was looking for an explanation for your statement on this.

Originally posted by jaden101
Staggering irony.

Not at all, my point was that I don't think it'd pass at all and that even if it did and was hack/disable proof. all it would do is create a demand on the back market for guns without sed devices.

IOW, I don't see it lowering the number of "mass shootings" at all.


Originally posted by snowdragon
Yes, I was looking for an explanation for your statement on this.

The statement is rather straight forward, what don't you understand?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not at all, my point was that I don't think it'd pass at all and that even if it did and was hack/disable proof. all it would do is create a demand on the back market for guns without sed devices.

IOW, I don't see it lowering the number of "mass shootings" at all.

The statement is rather straight forward, what don't you understand?

I was looking for an explanation because I don't believe you understand the implications of your statement.

Mental health checks for free speech......so everytime I express myself? Mental health checks prior to every vote........last time i checked running into a school with a megaphone shouting rhetoric doesn't/hasn't killed anyone........

I also explained why high capacity magazines should be banned, they have ZERO impact on your right to bear arms, yet they clearly make guns MORE lethal and dangerous.

Obvious is obvious, otherwise, if it didn't matter the military would still be using bolt-action rifles with 5 round magazines as standard issue to all troops.

If we go with your idea, just treat it like a regular license. they have to be renewed every X months/years.

Your explanation is that they're not needed, I don't see that as a valid reason to ban something.

Come to think of it, isn't requiring an ID to purchase a gun racist against minorities? Just like the voting ID thing. Poor guys, we're so mean to these people

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not at all, my point was that I don't think it'd pass at all and that even if it did and was hack/disable proof. all it would do is create a demand on the back market for guns without sed devices.

IOW, I don't see it lowering the number of "mass shootings" at all.


Well you were concerned about costs of geofencing. Something that supermarkets use to disable shopping carts within a certain distance of a store. I've seen examples of it implemented that cost stores $18,000 and that included the disabling mechanisms on over 150 carts. A cost that would be borne by the purchaser of an outfitted weapon rather than the school/public body. And this is one of the more expensive potential solutions.

The concern of technology being circumvented is also a red herring.

Why bother having a lock on your front door is people can just break them anyway. Not having door locks wouldn't result in an increase in home robberies.

Why bother having alarms, steering locks and engine immobilisers in cars if people can still steal them anyway. They haven't resulted in any decrease in car thefts at all. Except the 60% decrease since the 1990s.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your explanation is that they're not needed, I don't see that as a valid reason to ban something.

That is only HALF of what I said, they make semi-automatic weapons MORE lethal giving them a higher uptime for shooting and less time reloading, fewer magazines to carry. High capacity magazines make it easier to shoot more rounds faster, banning them doesn't affect your ability to bear arms, especially as it pertains to public safety.

Just like silencers make guns more lethal in the sense they can mask a lot of noise and prevent people from hearing the gun firing, silencers have nothing to do with your right to bear arms especially as it pertains to public safety.

Bump stocks, allow unskilled/low skilled shooters the ability to fire more rounds faster, hence more lethal. Not required for you to have the right to bear arms especially as it pertains to public safety.

So when we look at items on the list I discuss "talking about safety" none of them say ban a gun, not one of my ideas. So public safety is #1 then toys for them AR "style" weapons come in the last place.

Originally posted by jaden101
Well you were concerned about costs of geofencing. Something that supermarkets use to disable shopping carts within a certain distance of a store. I've seen examples of it implemented that cost stores $18,000 and that included the disabling mechanisms on over 150 carts. A cost that would be borne by the purchaser of an outfitted weapon rather than the school/public body. And this is one of the more expensive potential solutions.

The concern of technology being circumvented is also a red herring.

Why bother having a lock on your front door is people can just break them anyway. Not having door locks wouldn't result in an increase in home robberies.

Why bother having alarms, steering locks and engine immobilisers in cars if people can still steal them anyway. They haven't resulted in any decrease in car thefts at all. Except the 60% decrease since the 1990s.

Among other things yes, But I specifically brought up the cost because you mention the costs of mental health care. A much bigger problem though however would be that I doubt people will be all that happy with allowing the government to have the ability to essentially turn off their guns. as that goes directly against the 2nd amendment.

Or as another poster said.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
The "gun-blocker" is going to become obsolete mighty fast when, several months after its released, there's three hundred videos on youtube showing you how to jail-break your gun in 5 minutes.

That's not even considering the fact that there's already billions of guns that exist that won't have these transmitters, meaning a massive gun trafficking black market would open up. If this gun-blocker was set-up tomorrow, it would be decades before we'd start to.see the benefits, since the people who want to commit crime will just... illegally buy guns that don't have transmitter s on them.

Originally posted by Surtur
Come to think of it, isn't requiring an ID to purchase a gun racist against minorities? Just like the voting ID thing. Poor guys, we're so mean to these people

My bad, I forgot voting was a constitutional right.

Originally posted by snowdragon
That is only HALF of what I said, they make semi-automatic weapons MORE lethal giving them a higher uptime for shooting and less time reloading, fewer magazines to carry. High capacity magazines make it easier to shoot more rounds faster, banning them doesn't affect your ability to bear arms, especially as it pertains to public safety.

Just like silencers make guns more lethal in the sense they can mask a lot of noise and prevent people from hearing the gun firing, silencers have nothing to do with your right to bear arms especially as it pertains to public safety.

Bump stocks, allow unskilled/low skilled shooters the ability to fire more rounds faster, hence more lethal. Not required for you to have the right to bear arms especially as it pertains to public safety.

So when we look at items on the list I discuss "talking about safety" none of them say ban a gun, not one of my ideas. So public safety is #1 then toys for them AR "style" weapons come in the last place.

"More lethal" also isn't a valid reason for banning them. I mean using the more lethal argument. why not just ban all cartridges above a .22? after all doing so wouldn't ban a gun?

Originally posted by Silent Master
"More lethal" also isn't a valid reason for banning them. I mean using the more lethal argument. why not just ban all cartridges above a .22? after all doing so wouldn't ban a gun?

Because comparing lethality of specific rounds as opposed to the number of rounds is more important in a non-combatant situation.

Why have speed limits....why why why..........public safety AND you still get to keep all your guns (without high capacity mags, bump stocks, silencers.) Total win for everyone.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Among other things yes, But I specifically brought up the cost because you mention the costs of mental health care. A much bigger problem though however would be that I doubt people will be all that happy with allowing the government to have the ability to essentially turn off their guns. as that goes directly against the 2nd amendment.

Or as another poster said.

Yeah, I made the suggestion months ago. The problem was basically the implementation and how well such a measure would be sustained. Too hard to implement thoroughly and too easy a bypass.

A simpler measure where the control would be out of the hands of the shooter would be better.

Like the smokescreen idea I had.

As we are just repeating ourselves, let's move on to a different point. What do you classify as a high-capacity magazine?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Among other things yes, But I specifically brought up the cost because you mention the costs of mental health care. A much bigger problem though however would be that I doubt people will be all that happy with allowing the government to have the ability to essentially turn off their guns. as that goes directly against the 2nd amendment.

Or as another poster said.

This discussion

http://giant.gfycat.com/DelectableBlueHoneybee.gif

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yeah, I made the suggestion months ago. The problem was basically the implementation and how well such a measure would be sustained. Too hard to implement thoroughly and too easy a bypass.

A simpler measure where the control would be out of the hands of the shooter would be better.

Like the smokescreen idea I had.

IMO, the main problem is the people committing the crimes so that is where we should be focusing.

That said, I'm all for making guns safer as long as it doesn't involve taking things away from law abiding citizens.

I guess some people see my point of view in Hollywood.

"Liz Keen will never carry an assault rifle again and I am deeply sorry for participating in glorifying them in the past. Yours, girl from Florida"

https://twitter.com/MeganBoone/status/967078176332701698?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fbig-hollywood%2F2018%2F02%2F23%2Fnbc-blacklist-actress-megan-boone-proclaims-fbi-character-will-never-carry-assault-weapons%2F

To late for anyone else here to take credit for being for this stance cept me, specially the leftists who laughed about it.

Are we back to blameshifting movies and videos games for the actions of people because it's Trump's new thing? And here I thought it was just "leftist" who didn't hold people accountable for their own actions. Weird.

Originally posted by Blindside12
I guess some people see my point of view in Hollywood.

"Liz Keen will never carry an assault rifle again and I am deeply sorry for participating in glorifying them in the past. Yours, girl from Florida"

https://twitter.com/MeganBoone/status/967078176332701698?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fbig-hollywood%2F2018%2F02%2F23%2Fnbc-blacklist-actress-megan-boone-proclaims-fbi-character-will-never-carry-assault-weapons%2F

To late for anyone else here to take credit for being for this stance cept me, specially the leftists who laughed about it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are we back to blameshifting movies and videos games for the actions of people because it's Trump's new thing? And here I thought it was just "leftist" who didn't hold people accountable for their own actions. Weird.

"Liz Keen will never carry an assault rifle again and I am deeply sorry for participating in glorifying them in the past. Yours, girl from Florida"

I'll be on full alert the next time I see some unhinged, goofy-looking prick posting pictures of his DVD and VHS collection on social media.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are we back to blameshifting movies and videos games for the actions of people because it's Trump's new thing? And here I thought it was just "leftist" who didn't hold people accountable for their own actions. Weird.
It seems we are and it's a ****ing disgrace.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I'll be on full alert the next time I see some unhinged, goofy-looking prick posting pictures of his DVD and VHS collection on social media.

If someone's still posting VHS pics, you better be extra vigilant, guy's likely one failed rewind away from snapping nad mass movie-line-quoting a school or mall or something.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
It seems we are and it's a ****ing disgrace.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people!"

"Guys, it's the violence in films and videogames that is killing people."

Both said by the same types of people.

Rob has all the solutions, yet hasnt presented any. Just a contrarian troll.

Robtard knows that blaming videogames on why some 20year old murdered 17 people in a school is just a deflection and little more than a red herring, it was back then when Clinton did it, just as it is now. Robtard knows that much, comrade.

"This is my last election, tell Vlad, after my election I will have more flexibility." Comrade Obama

I do want to kill whoever thinks Bruce Willis will be a good analogue for Bronson in the deathwish remake. Awful casting... I would like to see straw dogs remade again with a far more violent anal rape scene tbh. Driller killer also needs a remake.

Originally posted by Robtard
Robtard knows that blaming videogames on why some 20year old murdered 17 people in a school is just a deflection and little more than a red herring, it was back then when Clinton did it, just as it is now. Robtard knows that much, comrade.

Robtard also knows I didnt blame video games for this

Substitute "movies" for "video games" if you wish, no real difference

Originally posted by Robtard
Substitute "movies" for "video games" if you wish, no real difference Agreed, violence is a choice unless someone is mentally ill and people understand real-world consequences. Although I do think as so many shooters are adolescents there is an argument that perhaps they have been desensitised in some ways to violence and repercussions. This though is not Trump's argument.

J3Z1pZhUYDc

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Agreed, violence is a choice unless someone is mentally ill and people understand real-world consequences. Although I do think as so many shooters are adolescents there is an argument that perhaps they have been desensitised in some ways to violence and repercussions. This though is not Trump's argument.
For sure there's an issue, we live in a crazy society where no one has a problem with extreme violence begin show on all forms of media and to all audiences, but showing a full naked body and god forbid sex causes people to shit themselves.

Originally posted by Robtard
For sure there's an issue, we live in a crazy society where no one has a problem with extreme violence begin show on all forms of media and to all audiences, but showing a full naked body and god forbid sex causes people to shit themselves. Well that's just wrong Rob, those people obviously don't know how to masturbate, are we back to Kurk and his pals? I jest, nah, you're right. The thing about sex for soppy puritans is ridiculous, they are very silly prudes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Substitute "movies" for "video games" if you wish, no real difference

Didnt blame movies either. Keep trying.

I'm pro gun, but people need to stop trying to blame TV and video games for violence. The 1st amendment is every bit if not more more important than the 2nd amendment so we don't need the government trying to control forms of art/expression. At most they can be pointed to as a symptom of an underlining problem, pretending that they are active problems in and of themselves is ridiculous.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I'm pro gun, but people need to stop trying to blame TV and video games for violence. The 1st amendment is every bit if not more more important than the 2nd amendment so we don't need the government trying to control forms of art/expression. At most they can be pointed to as a symptom of an underlining problem, pretending that they are active problems in and of themselves is ridiculous.

Kind of like guns. they aren't the problem. it's the criminals using them that are the real problem.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Kind of like guns. they aren't the problem. it's the criminals using them that are the real problem.
I totally agree.

TBF, if we make all drugs legal, the illegal activity and violence that comes with such surrounding drugs sort of dries up. Can't really say the same for guns.

"Hollywood glorifies violence, but blames the NRA and Conservatives"

I guess we have some special kinds of idiots here, no one where in the OP or subsequently did I state movies were to blame.

Gun violence can have consequences on Hollywood and they could think about adjusting their tone about violence if they are going to take up the tone that guns are bad.

Simple practice what you preach like this one woman actress did. How is that to hard to ask.