Gun Master Debate

[Dak]

I don't think there is enough aluminum in the world to keep you safe from yourself

/yawn

There is no "conspiracy" against the slave. The slave is property. What it's owners do is merely for it to accept. Like offering them the option to vote on the length of the leash or the acting foreman from time to time. What kind owners. We must give thanks.

 

[Summerian]

And it's not like people get killed by guns or anything.
And even if they were, there is simply nothing that can be done about it.

 

[rms]

ha, hey Obama, Fuck your stupid gun control bullshit!

Really against 'expanded' background checks?

 

[UltimateApathy]

Nailed it:


http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carrey

"Some folks ride like the wind with the whispering pines to guide them
And the burning light inside them keeps them warm in the snow
Others fear the sounds they hear, making needles out of molehills
Fill their hearts with porcupine quills, they’re dead and buried before they go

Charlton Heston movies are no longer in demand
His immortal soul may lay forever in the sand,
the angels wouldn’t take him up to heaven like he planned
‘cos they couldn’t pry that gun from his cold dead hand

It takes a cold dead hand to decide to pull the trigger,
it takes a cold dead heart, and as near as I can figure
with your cold dead aim you’re trying to prove your dick is bigger,
but we all know your cherry it may not be swinging low

Cold dead hand (x4)

You’re a big big man with an itty-bitty gland so you need something bigger just to fill your cold dead hand.
Imagine if the Lord were here and he knew what you’d been thinking,
would his sacred heart be sinking into the canyon of dismay?
And on the ones who sell the guns
he’d set the vultures and coyotes,
only the Devil’s true devotees
could profiteer from pain and fear

You’re a big big man with an itty-bitty gland so you need something bigger with a hair- pin trigger, you don’t wanna get caught with your trousers down when that psycho killer comes around so you make your home like a Thunderdome and you’re always packing everywhere you roam, but the psychos win no matter what you do because they’re going to buy way more guns than you.

And while you’re stumbling out of bed they put 5 rounds in the back of your head, or you get depressed because the money runs out and you put your own shotgun in your mouth and your kids walk in and they find you there like a headless hump in your underwear and they move the gun and it kills them too and your wife just doesn’t know what to do so she takes the hand grenade from her shoe and she pulls the pin, and it’s all on youuuuuuuuuuu… and your cold dead hand."

 

[UltimateApathy]

It's because of people like the ones in this video that it's so easy for the greedy American gun manufacturers and their rabid pet dog the NRA to brainwash their minions into believing their lies about "everyone should have a gun (but preferably more than one)." If you're a fanatical gun nut who is obessesed with your collection of pseudo-penises, watch this video - you'll see many mirror images of youself staring back at you:

 

[Dak]

Some people think metalheads listen to metal as a pseudo-penis. Ad homs are real 'telligent bro.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Oh, you mean the same people that think that Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift are the the pinnacle of musical accomplishment in the universe? Hahaha Metal is the ultimate non-conformist and non-commercial statement within the the realm of musical entertainment.

 

[Summerian]

More people shoot in USA.
Ha ha ha
good

 

[Mort Divine]

Oh, you mean the same people that think that Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift are the the pinnacle of musical accomplishment in the universe? Hahaha Metal is the ultimate non-conformist and non-commercial statement within the the realm of musical entertainment.

no it isn't

 

[UltimateApathy]

no it isn't

Is this the part where I say: "I know you are but what am I?"

 

[UltimateApathy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/assault-weapon-sales-military-style_n_2333584.html

In February 2006, Smith & Wesson, the storied gunmaker founded in 1851, unveiled its first-ever semi-automatic assault-style rifle. The company dubbed it the M&P15, for "military and police," but the gun was very much aimed at the retail market.

Consumer response was "overwhelming," Mike Golden, the former CEO, told investors in a conference call the following year. Sales of the M&P15 and other military-style weapons were playing a crucial role in pulling the company out of a deep sales slump, he said.

Sales continued to surge, with more than 100,000 M&P15 rifles built in 2010, up from 4,600 in 2006, according to federal firearms manufacturing data. Smith & Wesson's revenues broke records and its stock price quadrupled. Then tragedy struck.

In July 2012, James Holmes, a disturbed 24-year-old graduate student, was accused of opening fire in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., using an M&P15 fitted with a high-capacity magazine, killing 12 and wounding 58. Holmes bought the gun at a local sporting goods store two months earlier, police said.

The U.S. consumer firearms market has undergone a seismic shift in recent decades, away from bolt-action hunting rifles, shotguns and revolvers, and toward military-style semi-automatics like the M&P15, according to industry analysts.

The boom in assault weapons has more than offset dropping sales of traditional firearms caused by a declining national interest in hunting, said Rommel Dionisio, a securities analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities who follows the gun industry.

"That category of firearms has been a primary growth engine and profit driver for firearms companies for the last seven or eight years," Dionisio said.




The profits are not limited to gun manufacturers. Assault weapons have become big sellers for national retailers like Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods, Dionisio said. "You also have to look at the retailers," he said. "Firearms have certainly been very profitable for them."

But as sales of assault weapons accelerated in recent years, they have surfaced in a growing number of mass killings, most recently the murder of 20 children and six adults in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., last Friday. Adam Lanza, 20, used a military-style Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic rifle in the killings, police said.

The Newtown massacre quickly led to calls for new controls on assault weapons from Washington, D.C., and caused waves on Wall Street, as a private equity firm announced Tuesday it was dumping its ownership stake in several leading gun manufacturers, including Bushmaster. Stocks in Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger, the largest publicly owned gun makers, also tumbled in the wake of the shooting.

For gun-control advocates, the proliferation of military-style weapons -- and high-capacity ammunition clips that greatly increase their lethality -- is directly responsible for the rising frequency of high-casualty mass shootings. Semi-automatic rifles like the M&P15 are modeled on 20th century battlefield weapons and are designed to quickly spray high volumes of bullets, making them a weapon of choice for mass shooters.

"If you want to stop mass shootings, you need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. You have to look at the industry and its products," said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

A spokeswoman for Smith & Wesson declined to comment on its sales of military-style weapons, or on the possibility of legislative action on gun control in the wake of the Newtown tragedy.

The National Rifle Association did not respond to a request for comment. In its first public statement since the shooting, the organization said it was “prepared to make meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.”

Leading Democrats pledged this week to introduce legislation renewing a lapsed 1994 assault weapons ban, and prohibiting high-capacity ammunition clips. Such bills are expected to be a key focus of a new executive-branch task force on gun violence to be led by Vice President Joseph Biden, announced by President Barack Obama on Wednesday.

Some retailers have already backed away from military-style rifles in the aftermath of Newtown. Dick's Sporting Goods said on Monday it was suspending sales of rifles like the Bushmaster .223 from its more than 500 stores.

Walmart continued to sell assault-style rifles, but pulled an online advertisement for a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that directed consumers to the nearest retail outlet where they could buy the gun.

Walmart did not respond to email and phone messages requesting comment. David Tovar, a Walmart spokesman, told CNN the Bushmaster ad was pulled out of "sensitivity" to the Newtown killings, but that the company had no immediate plans to pull assault-style rifles from its shelves.

"We have not made any changes to the assortment of guns we sell," Tovar said.

Walmart discontinued gun sales at many of its stores in the mid-2000s, but quietly began returning firearms to most of its outlets last year. At an October 2012 shareholder meeting, a company executive boasted that gun sales were up 76 percent at stores open a year or more. The company, with roughly 1,700 stores in the U.S., is the nation's largest firearms retailer.

A major shift by retailers away from stocking assault-style rifles would hit gun makers hard, industry experts said.

A 2011 annual report by Freedom Group, the country's top manufacturer of assault-style rifles, noted that Walmart accounted for 15 percent of its total sales in 2011. Another retailer, which was not named, accounted for 6 percent of sales, it said.

Were Walmart to terminate its purchases, the company wrote, "our financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected."

Yet Freedom Group -- now up for sale by Cerberus Capital Management, a New York-based private equity fund -- saw a rosy outlook for assault rifles, which it calls “modern sporting rifles.” The market for such weapons grew 27 percent between 2007 and 2011, it wrote.

“In 2011, demand for modern sporting rifles and handguns continued its upward trend in the industry,” the company said.

 

[Dak]

a) I never said that governments should be the only ones with guns, I said that the only civilians who should be allowed to carry guns are the ones who need it for their jobs, such as hunters and bodyguards. This is a perfectly viable and succesful model of society that is implemented in most countries around the world, with the U.S. being one of the very few countries in the world that allows any and all civilians to buy as many guns whenever they want without any reason or justification - with the reason being that lawmakers are in the pockets of the gun companies. Clearly more guns doesn't result in a safer society or the U.S. would be the safest country in the world, when in fact it is by far the most dangerous first world country out there, with more than half of all murders and a considerable proportion of all violent crime occurring with a gun involved.

Obviuously if so many people want to buy guns the lawmakers in this instance are in the pockets of the public. No one is forcing the public to buy guns. They are a rather frivolous purchase past 1-2.

Also, it is not "by far the most dangerous first world country", and most of the murders and other violent crimes occuring in places with strict or previously total gun control. We've already been over this, stop repeating factually incorrect talking points.

b) Are you really still trying to go down that path of "We need guns to resist and violently overthrow the U.S. government if it ever becomes an oppressive dictatorship"? Firstly, the chances of the U.S. ever becoming a totalitarian dictatorship are incredibly miniscule, and secondly, do you really think some rednecks with hunting rifles will be able to resist a government armed with tanks, jets, attack helicopters, battleships, and nuclear submarines? This idiotic idea may have held some water several hundred years ago when the law about gun possession as a right was drafted, but it's completely meaningless nowadays. However, that doesn't stop gun companies (via the NRA) from pedalling that same fear-mongering idiotic conspiracy theories to the ignorant masses, who eat up that brainless shit faster than anything deep-fried at a redneck gathering.

No we aren't going through that again (the Taliban invalidates your argument btw), I'm pointing out your mental disconnects; illogical and irrational thought. You claim to be so concerned about war mongering and then turn and bash private ownership of small arms, which supposedly are incapable of waging war. None of your views add up. It's like you read a bunch of disparate talking points and grabbed them out at random.

Government warmongering makes private murder figures look rather paltry in comparison. You have much more to fear from the police and military than the guy next door. Disarm the greatest threat first.

c) Are you seriously trying to belittle the profitabillity and extent of the private gun industry in the U.S.A.? We're talking about billions of dollars here (check online if you don't believe me), and it's hardly akin to "some kids building computers in the basement." Here's an article about how the gun industry has been boosting profit through sales of assault weapons - the kind most commonly used in mass shootings:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/assault-weapon-sales-military-style_n_2333584.html

Here's laughing at you, kid:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/19/seven-facts-about-the-u-s-gun-industry/

"This year, the industry is expected to rack up a steady $11.7 billion in sales and $993 million in profits, according to analysts at IBIS World. Gun makers churned out nearly six million guns last year — double the number that they did a decade ago."

Feel embarrassed now, son?

First: I mentioned one manufacturer vs other individual manufacturers, not the whole industry. However, since you want to move the goalposts, I'll play your game. We will take the $993 million in profits figure at face value for the purpose of this thread. That's the entire industry combined, and includes the profits made by selling to the military and police. So the entire industry, including government sales, is less profitable than single MIC corporations:

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=LMT

You can look up any number of mid-large sized MIC corporations on this site and find out pretty much any of them by themselves outprofit and outgross the entire US small arms industry. If you subtracted government purchases from the small arms industry (you know, those sales you don't really care about), it would be dramatically less than the relatively small number it is now.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Obviuously if so many people want to buy guns the lawmakers in this instance are in the pockets of the public. No one is forcing the public to buy guns. They are a rather frivolous purchase past 1-2.

Also, it is not "by far the most dangerous first world country", and most of the murders and other violent crimes occuring in places with strict or previously total gun control. We've already been over this, stop repeating factually incorrect talking points.



No we aren't going through that again (the Taliban invalidates your argument btw), I'm pointing out your mental disconnects; illogical and irrational thought. You claim to be so concerned about war mongering and then turn and bash private ownership of small arms, which supposedly are incapable of waging war. None of your views add up. It's like you read a bunch of disparate talking points and grabbed them out at random.

Government warmongering makes private murder figures look rather paltry in comparison. You have much more to fear from the police and military than the guy next door. Disarm the greatest threat first.






First: I mentioned one manufacturer vs other individual manufacturers, not the whole industry. However, since you want to move the goalposts, I'll play your game. We will take the $993 million in profits figure at face value for the purpose of this thread. That's the entire industry combined, and includes the profits made by selling to the military and police. So the entire industry, including government sales, is less profitable than single MIC corporations:

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=LMT

You can look up any number of mid-large sized MIC corporations on this site and find out pretty much any of them by themselves outprofit and outgross the entire US small arms industry. If you subtracted government purchases from the small arms industry (you know, those sales you don't really care about), it would be dramatically less than the relatively small number it is now.

Does repeating the lies over and over again somehow make them true? People want to buy guns because the lawmakers are in the pockets of gun companies, which means that said companies are free to both advertise and sell guns wherever and to whoever they want with little to stop them. Has an ignorant brainwashed mind like yours ever watched the Oscar-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine"? He even manages to pick up a free gun in a deal IN A BANK - if that doesn't tell you that American gun culture is both corporate-controlled and sick, I don't know what will. Watch the movie and get back to me - if your propoganda-filled corporate-controlled little mind is even capable of absorbing the truth:


Ever wondered why cigarette advertising is illegal?

The only reason guns were banned in certain parts of the U.S. was that gun crime was totally out of control in said areas, and when they banned guns the criminals obviously still kept their guns, and they would easily be able to pick up guns and ammunition in neighbouring legal-gun districts when needed. Are you really so stupid and braindead to try argue that the safest areas of the U.S. have attained such a status because everyone is lugging around guns armed to the teeth to protect themselves?
FACT: the U.S. has the greatest degree of gun-related crime of all first world countries - there is no debating this point. FACT: gun crime is the most serious of all kinds of violent crime - there is no debating this point either. Both points have been amply proved earlier in this topic via numerous posted studies. Therefore, FACT: the U.S. is the most dangerous of all first world countries because of the excessive amount of firearms in civillian hands.
You wanna talk about the Taliban? You mean the same Taliban that the U.S. armed to the tune of billions of dollars to combat the U.S.S.R. back the in the days of the Cold War, right? Go watch "Charlie Wilson's War", son.
You are seemingly so brainwashed that you are even willing to exhorbitantly downplay the value of 1 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN PROFIT for gun companies - what a joke! Don't even bother to reply to this until you've watched "Bowling For Columbine," - and in the meantime, we'll just keep laughing at your assertion that civillians can capably wage war against the U.S. government with small arms

 

[Krow]

Emoticons? Check
Stupid picture? Check.

Implying the cigarette advertising that was made to make them look cool to the younger generation that was banned is similar to a fucking non existent gun advertising.

Implying cigarette advertising is illegal.

Implying a cigarette that anyone can fucking get anywhere is similar to a firearm.

Implying your father shouldn't have left you in a sock.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Ooooh looks like we've got an angry nicotine addict over here You seem quite confused: firstly you mention that cigarette advertising was banned and then you imply that cigarette advertising is not illegal? Also, the N.R.A. spends millions and millions of dollars every year on advertising propoganda, and it's already been proven by numerous posts with factual links earlier in this topic that the N.R.A. work hand-in-hand with gun corporations to promote their products - that hardly amounts to "non-existant" gun advertising. Go read the earlier posts in topic before spewing out so much ignorance here, son.

 

[Baroque]

I could go either way on this issue, but just since someone is SO for gun control:

1) Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither. - B.F.

2) If the public has no guns, and the government has guns, what happens in the event we fight another revolution? We get massacred.

3) How do you propose to convince people to give up the millions of guns already in circulation? How do you propose to stop the black market sale of said millions of guns? How do you propose to stop the home manufacture of guns?

4) If you make it illegal to buy guns, then you make guns available to those who would break the law only, while those who would own guns legally and safely are gunless.

 

[UltimateApathy]

I could go either way on this issue, but just since someone is SO for gun control:

1) Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither. - B.F.

2) If the public has no guns, and the government has guns, what happens in the event we fight another revolution? We get massacred.

3) How do you propose to convince people to give up the millions of guns already in circulation? How do you propose to stop the black market sale of said millions of guns? How do you propose to stop the home manufacture of guns?

4) If you make it illegal to buy guns, then you make guns available to those who would break the law only, while those who would own guns legally and safely are gunless.

So let's see:

a) You apparently don't have any strong feelings on this matter but just felt like commenting for annoyance value.

b) If you define "freedom" as "being able to carry a deadly weapon in your pocket" then you should probably consult professional help to undo these deep-seated psychological issues based upon insecurity or brainwashing - or probably both. Would you like to be able to drive a tank around and keep nuclear weapons in your backyard too?

c) Do you really want to venture down this idiotic and illogical path of rednecks being able to fight the U.S. government with small arms? That must be the most flogged and deadest horse in the whole N.R.A. propoganda brigade, but brainwashed pawns (like you) still eat that up that nonsense like Paula Deen at Sunday lunch. *Gotta be paranoid because paranoia sells...

d) There are plenty of examples of countries that used to be overflowing with guns that now are mostly gun-less - and very safe, I might add. You can't simply throw up your hands and say, "It's impossible to fix," when confronted by significant and entrenched social problems. If you followed that kind of thinking, for example, we'd still have slavery and women would still not be allowed to vote.

e) If nobody has any guns, then nobody needs to carry any guns for protection - pretty logical, right? In places like Britain, gun control has worked so well that most policemen don't even carry guns.

*This is your mindset right here - note the highlighted parts:



"Don't wanna be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation under the new media
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind fuck America.
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along to the age of paranoia.
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

Don't want to be an American idiot.
One nation controlled by the media.
Information age of hysteria.
It's calling out to idiot America.
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue."

 

[Baroque]

Trolling you into more "thought out" responses like this might be more entertaining than debating you, but hell, I'll bite.


a) Well, it worked. And all of your posts are annoying so glad I could return the favor.

b) Yes, actually, I believe that is part of how our country defines freedom in our Constitution. It is one of our Rights. I wouldn't give up any of my rights easily.

c) We'd have a better chance with guns than without. You think the government would send tanks and bombs? No. Because not every citizen is in the rebellion. They're not going to nuke cities. In a rebellion it would be guerilla warfare on the streets. It may happen, you never know. We rebelled over taxes, only we have more taxes now (income tax, sales tax, etc) than we did to begin the previous revolution. You keep taking away the rights we agreed to in the constitution and you bet another revolution will come eventually.

d) Alright so you may have examples but I have counter examples that make this route of debate pointless. Guns are illegal in Mexico for example. Is it safer to travel to Mexico or the U.S.? 3rd world countries, etc.

e) Yes, if nobody has guns. You totally missed my 3 questions in 3). How do you propose to take away all guns? How do you make sure that you've taken every gun? Wouldn't criminals just bury them somewhere for future use? What about home manufacture? Black market sales of old guns? etc.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Trolling you into more "thought out" responses like this might be more entertaining than debating you, but hell, I'll bite.


a) Well, it worked. And all of your posts are annoying so glad I could return the favor.

b) Yes, actually, I believe that is part of how our country defines freedom in our Constitution. It is one of our Rights. I wouldn't give up any of my rights easily.

c) We'd have a better chance with guns than without. You think the government would send tanks and bombs? No. Because not every citizen is in the rebellion. They're not going to nuke cities. In a rebellion it would be guerilla warfare on the streets. It may happen, you never know. We rebelled over taxes, only we have more taxes now (income tax, sales tax, etc) than we did to begin the previous revolution. You keep taking away the rights we agreed to in the constitution and you bet another revolution will come eventually.

d) Alright so you may have examples but I have counter examples that make this route of debate pointless. Guns are illegal in Mexico for example. Is it safer to travel to Mexico or the U.S.? 3rd world countries, etc.

e) Yes, if nobody has guns. You totally missed my 3 questions in 3). How do you propose to take away all guns? How do you make sure that you've taken every gun? Wouldn't criminals just bury them somewhere for future use? What about home manufacture? Black market sales of old guns? etc.

a) Actually, your posts are more amusing than annoying due to their pathetic nature.

b) Ah yes, there it is, a common propoganda piece for N.R.A. puppets to piss on about, the blind mindless allegiance to rules in the Constitution, even though the Constitution changes all the time. Did you know that people used to have the "right" to own slaves too? Laws are not bound in stone and are subject to change with necessity and time, and when your country has the highest amount of gun crime in the first world as well the greatest number of high profile mass shootings in the entire world, there definitely is necessity to change certain laws.

c) HAHAHAHA are you really still trying to impress me with this mindless fear-mongering paranoia-inspiring N.R.A. propoganda puppet-talk? I'm laughing so hard right now it's gonna take me a while to stop, so in the meanwhile why don't you take your little pistol and find an army base where you can see what happens when you fire at a tank with it? Or maybe go to an airbase and fire at a few fighter jets and attack helicopters with your shotgun while they're in the sky and see how that goes? Or perhaps take one of those semi-automatic rifles that your American mass murders love so much and fire at some battleships or nuclear submarines in your nearest naval station and see how far that gets you? And later, when your mindless idiocy has been exhausted, I suggest you listen to "American Idiot" again and read the lyrics very carefully

d) Mexico is so dangerous precisely because it is awash in guns from the U.S.A. - countries where guns are illegal for the civillian population to own obviously don't have weapon manufacturers that make guns for civillians, *duh* It is American-made guns that fuel the abillity of Mexican drug gangs to not only slaughter each brutally and with alarming regularity, but even to resist the police and armed in brute strength. If the U.S.A. didn't have such a gun problem, Mexico would be a lot safer too, and the gangsters there would be more like gangsters in countries that have strict gun-control, where their activities are far more secretive and underground, and don't involve open bloody warfare on the streets. Furthermore, it is American-made guns that fuel a lot of civil wars in African countries and other third world countries, as has already been extensively mentioned and linked to previously in this topic - don't bother spewing out your ignorance here if you haven't actually read the whole topic.

e) This is essentially what you are saying, another well-worn N.R.A. propoganda snorefest:

Get back to me when you decide to start using your own brain and stop letting greedy multinational corporations do your thinking for you.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm confused. Are you trying to argue that there should be no guns, or that guns should be regulated?