HorrorMovieFans.com

Reign in Blood wrote:

Jason wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Jason wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:You'd support reasonable gun control, so don't go full retard with the trolling, Jason.

"Common sense" gun control
"Reasonable" gun control

All these labels and little explanation behind them. I should be able to own a turret and put it on the roof of my house if I so choose. I have the right to defend myself from actual nuts who manage to get their hands on guns. "Shall. Not. Be. Infringed." People acting like the gun is the issue and not the psychotic fucks who ILLEGALLY get their hands on them and pull the trigger. If one of these lunatics gets their hands on an uzi from the mexican mafia, great. Thanks. Law abiding citizen here, only owning a wussy little Beretta because retards thought banning rifles, clips and shotguns would solve the issue of nutjobs going on rampages with guns. Now here comes Lunatic Larry with his illegally purchased open-bolt uzi that he got from the mexican mafia and all I have is this stupid Beretta to defend myself with. I should be allowed to put a turret on the roof of my house to prevent him from coming in and uzing up the place if I so choose. Pretending guns are the issue is about as stupid as anything can be.

"Common sense" thug control
"Reasonable" lunatic control

You see the issue. I wouldn't trust most people with a cup of warm piss, let's give everyone bazookas. And motherfucker you can't stay on a bike, you ain't getting no turret, especially one you sit in. We'll find you keeled over while the thing caps some 8 year old chicano walking her doggie.

We're not allowed to own guns, remember?

You're allowed. Uncle Willie is just gonna have to wait a little longer, go through more red tape before he can get his 26th rifle and case of double up buck. He'll whine about the wait, talk about his freedom and slippery slopes, and somewhere some innocent person won't have their head blown off because a few more restrictions and things were put in place.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:And yeah inevitably some people will still get their hands on guns and do horrible things with them. But significantly less will and that's the point of government, using your resources to improve problems in society. The gun lovers with nothing to worry about will still have nothing to worry about, just more bureaucracy. That's okay.

and people will still do things even if they can't do it with guns. the solution has to be bigger than just "bureaucracy for gun owners", so i hope this is more than just a gesture to look good politically.

Yeah, they will. Not nearly to the extent or magnitude as if they had guns, which is an improvement. Which is the point of these policies. Improvement.

A lot more productive than sitting on our hands saying "Oh no, we can't eliminate 100% of domestic terrorism, guess we'll do nothing"

there are a lot of ways that could be productive. you focus on the tool, and ignore the tool user, it undoes some of the productivity.

You can't productively address the problem by focusing on how to fix people. Not nearly as effectively.

well, i hope that if you get what you want, background checks and keeping up with gun owners is enough of a solution to satisfy. but i have my doubts.

What is enough of a solution? Many of the policies I'm talking about have been proven deterrents and decreased gun violence in their jurisdictions. It isn't speculation, they work. So long as your expectations are in touch with reality and not some utopia.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Funny how quickly common sense regulations became "we can't have guns". These right wing nut jobs are something else.

The liberal lunatics are historically god awful at defining things. "Common sense regulations! Oh, we just mean background checks and ban clips and stuff. Oh, and no assault rifles and this and that and the other OK?"

I should be able to own any gun that Lunatic Lawrence can get illegally from the underground market.

politicians are all pretty shady when it comes to getting what they really want.

And this is true always, so...what?

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:And yeah inevitably some people will still get their hands on guns and do horrible things with them. But significantly less will and that's the point of government, using your resources to improve problems in society. The gun lovers with nothing to worry about will still have nothing to worry about, just more bureaucracy. That's okay.

and people will still do things even if they can't do it with guns. the solution has to be bigger than just "bureaucracy for gun owners", so i hope this is more than just a gesture to look good politically.

Yeah, they will. Not nearly to the extent or magnitude as if they had guns, which is an improvement. Which is the point of these policies. Improvement.

A lot more productive than sitting on our hands saying "Oh no, we can't eliminate 100% of domestic terrorism, guess we'll do nothing"

there are a lot of ways that could be productive. you focus on the tool, and ignore the tool user, it undoes some of the productivity.

You can't productively address the problem by focusing on how to fix people. Not nearly as effectively.

well, i hope that if you get what you want, background checks and keeping up with gun owners is enough of a solution to satisfy. but i have my doubts.

What is enough of a solution? Many of the policies I'm talking about have been proven deterrents and decreased gun violence in their jurisdictions. It isn't speculation, they work. So long as your expectations are in touch with reality and not some utopia.

you and i are just speculating and spitballing, unless you have some pull in washington. i don't know what gun control politicians view to be enough of a solution. i know that many politicians are quick to call for bans, when speaking out about an issue.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Funny how quickly common sense regulations became "we can't have guns". These right wing nut jobs are something else.

The liberal lunatics are historically god awful at defining things. "Common sense regulations! Oh, we just mean background checks and ban clips and stuff. Oh, and no assault rifles and this and that and the other OK?"

I should be able to own any gun that Lunatic Lawrence can get illegally from the underground market.

politicians are all pretty shady when it comes to getting what they really want.

And this is true always, so...what?

"liberal lunatics"
"all politicians"

that's the end of it. it wasn't a response to you.

Headhunter wrote:If I can't buy my guns over the counter from some guy named Buck with no questions asked, am I really in a free country?

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Funny how quickly common sense regulations became "we can't have guns". These right wing nut jobs are something else.

The liberal lunatics are historically god awful at defining things. "Common sense regulations! Oh, we just mean background checks and ban clips and stuff. Oh, and no assault rifles and this and that and the other OK?"

I should be able to own any gun that Lunatic Lawrence can get illegally from the underground market.

politicians are all pretty shady when it comes to getting what they really want.

And this is true always, so...what?

"liberal lunatics"
"all politicians"

that's the end of it. it wasn't a response to you.

I wouldn't say "all". There are a select few out there. One is currently president. JFK was pretty great in a lot of ways, but I have mixed feelings about how great he was.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:If I can't buy my guns over the counter from some guy named Buck with no questions asked, am I really in a free country?

if people still have fingers to pull their triggers, will we ever truly be safe?

let's knock off the silly hyperbole.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:If I can't buy my guns over the counter from some guy named Buck with no questions asked, am I really in a free country?

if people still have fingers to pull their triggers, will we ever truly be safe?

let's knock off the silly hyperbole.

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Funny how quickly common sense regulations became "we can't have guns". These right wing nut jobs are something else.

The liberal lunatics are historically god awful at defining things. "Common sense regulations! Oh, we just mean background checks and ban clips and stuff. Oh, and no assault rifles and this and that and the other OK?"

I should be able to own any gun that Lunatic Lawrence can get illegally from the underground market.

politicians are all pretty shady when it comes to getting what they really want.

And this is true always, so...what?

"liberal lunatics"
"all politicians"

that's the end of it. it wasn't a response to you.

I wouldn't say "all". There are a select few out there. One is currently president. JFK was pretty great in a lot of ways, but I have mixed feelings about how great he was.

trump plays the politician's game as well as anyone has.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:If I can't buy my guns over the counter from some guy named Buck with no questions asked, am I really in a free country?

if people still have fingers to pull their triggers, will we ever truly be safe?

let's knock off the silly hyperbole.

If those fingers can't get their hands on guns, we'll be safer.

It isn't hyperbole. It is sarcasm, but it's something many conservatives would be perfectly fine with, out of principle.

Headhunter wrote: I'm just curious what you consider to be successful. Would 50% less mass shootings be worth it?

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Funny how quickly common sense regulations became "we can't have guns". These right wing nut jobs are something else.

The liberal lunatics are historically god awful at defining things. "Common sense regulations! Oh, we just mean background checks and ban clips and stuff. Oh, and no assault rifles and this and that and the other OK?"

I should be able to own any gun that Lunatic Lawrence can get illegally from the underground market.

politicians are all pretty shady when it comes to getting what they really want.

And this is true always, so...what?

"liberal lunatics"
"all politicians"

that's the end of it. it wasn't a response to you.

I wouldn't say "all". There are a select few out there. One is currently president. JFK was pretty great in a lot of ways, but I have mixed feelings about how great he was.

trump plays the politician's game as well as anyone has.

And he's done it to a degree of honesty and realism at least 95% of the time. That's what I look for in a president. A brash, egotistical badass with my best interest in mind. Pretty cool guy. Will likely vote for him again in 2020.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:And yeah inevitably some people will still get their hands on guns and do horrible things with them. But significantly less will and that's the point of government, using your resources to improve problems in society. The gun lovers with nothing to worry about will still have nothing to worry about, just more bureaucracy. That's okay.

and people will still do things even if they can't do it with guns. the solution has to be bigger than just "bureaucracy for gun owners", so i hope this is more than just a gesture to look good politically.

Yeah, they will. Not nearly to the extent or magnitude as if they had guns, which is an improvement. Which is the point of these policies. Improvement.

A lot more productive than sitting on our hands saying "Oh no, we can't eliminate 100% of domestic terrorism, guess we'll do nothing"

there are a lot of ways that could be productive. you focus on the tool, and ignore the tool user, it undoes some of the productivity.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I'm just curious what you consider to be successful. Would 50% less mass shootings be worth it?

i'm not against background checks and licenses and such, as long as there is still legal access to guns. i'm just wary of politicians. but that seems to be too much for you? i don't know what you want.

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:And yeah inevitably some people will still get their hands on guns and do horrible things with them. But significantly less will and that's the point of government, using your resources to improve problems in society. The gun lovers with nothing to worry about will still have nothing to worry about, just more bureaucracy. That's okay.

and people will still do things even if they can't do it with guns. the solution has to be bigger than just "bureaucracy for gun owners", so i hope this is more than just a gesture to look good politically.

Yeah, they will. Not nearly to the extent or magnitude as if they had guns, which is an improvement. Which is the point of these policies. Improvement.

A lot more productive than sitting on our hands saying "Oh no, we can't eliminate 100% of domestic terrorism, guess we'll do nothing"

there are a lot of ways that could be productive. you focus on the tool, and ignore the tool user, it undoes some of the productivity.

Why not do both? Same time. You got a classroom of 30 kids, 5 of em are eating and huffing the fucking glue, what might a teacher do? You don't ban the glue and the good it does. You might lock the glue up, only bring it out when monitored etc. meanwhile find out why these little shits are getting high high.

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:And yeah inevitably some people will still get their hands on guns and do horrible things with them. But significantly less will and that's the point of government, using your resources to improve problems in society. The gun lovers with nothing to worry about will still have nothing to worry about, just more bureaucracy. That's okay.

and people will still do things even if they can't do it with guns. the solution has to be bigger than just "bureaucracy for gun owners", so i hope this is more than just a gesture to look good politically.

Yeah, they will. Not nearly to the extent or magnitude as if they had guns, which is an improvement. Which is the point of these policies. Improvement.

A lot more productive than sitting on our hands saying "Oh no, we can't eliminate 100% of domestic terrorism, guess we'll do nothing"

there are a lot of ways that could be productive. you focus on the tool, and ignore the tool user, it undoes some of the productivity.

Why not do both? Same time. You got a classroom of 30 kids, 5 of em are eating and huffing the fucking glue, what might a teacher do? You don't ban the glue and the good it does. You might lock the glue up, only bring it out when monitored etc. meanwhile find out why these little shits are getting high high.

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:And yeah inevitably some people will still get their hands on guns and do horrible things with them. But significantly less will and that's the point of government, using your resources to improve problems in society. The gun lovers with nothing to worry about will still have nothing to worry about, just more bureaucracy. That's okay.

and people will still do things even if they can't do it with guns. the solution has to be bigger than just "bureaucracy for gun owners", so i hope this is more than just a gesture to look good politically.

Yeah, they will. Not nearly to the extent or magnitude as if they had guns, which is an improvement. Which is the point of these policies. Improvement.

A lot more productive than sitting on our hands saying "Oh no, we can't eliminate 100% of domestic terrorism, guess we'll do nothing"

there are a lot of ways that could be productive. you focus on the tool, and ignore the tool user, it undoes some of the productivity.

Why not do both? Same time. You got a classroom of 30 kids, 5 of em are eating and huffing the fucking glue, what might a teacher do? You don't ban the glue and the good it does. You might lock the glue up, only bring it out when monitored etc. meanwhile find out why these little shits are getting high high.

good call. but it's not what anyone else seems to want to hear, in this thread.