jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 01, 2019 01:32PM
Well we don't have terrorists running knifing people. You cannot legislate
away violence at all, you can only legislate away self protection. All the gun
laws do is change the weapon people use to kill other people. Smart people
understand that the police can't be everywhere all the time and it is up to us
to protect ourselves.
pulse Report This Comment Date: December 01, 2019 02:07PM
If guns were easy to get, the terrorist would likely have had them too and the
damage would've been considerably higher.
quasi Report This Comment Date: December 02, 2019 01:23AM
Right, American terrorists use guns like real men so the body count is usually
higher. They're also almost always white guys with shit attitudes, but lets be
afraid of Muslims.
pulse Report This Comment Date: December 02, 2019 01:54AM
Don't forget high school students
quasi Report This Comment Date: December 02, 2019 02:47AM
The high school students are proving their manhood. It's an up and coming new
ritual.
Loner Report This Comment Date: December 05, 2019 01:19AM
...Not if the terrorist had had a real bomb vest.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 05, 2019 01:38PM
My point was, violence is violence and it doesn't matter what tool they use.
it is impossible to legislate away violence no matter what you try. Maybe
governments should ban everything and send us beck to the stone age it would
help(sarcasm). Blaming the tool used is easier than trying to change people's
nature.
Loner Report This Comment Date: December 05, 2019 04:20PM
I was actually responding to Pulse. I agree with JGoins.
God bless the banquet hall staff and attendees who stepped in.
[
www.bbc.com]
By the way, knife beats gun up close. I'm not saying 100%. But knife has the
edge. (<--that's for everyone).
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 06, 2019 01:37PM
My comment was directed to Pulse and anyone who blames the guns people use to
cause harm to other people instead of blaming the person who did the attacking.
Maybe London should ban and remove all knives in the country. While they are at
it they should ban and remove all motor vehicles as well. Maybe governments
should allow people to protect themselves with whatever they need to do that
while they await the police.
Loner Report This Comment Date: December 06, 2019 08:04PM
Funny you should mention that JGoins:
[
www.usatoday.com]
It's kind of funny, because 3 inches is plenty. Hell, even a box cutter is
deadly. And a folding knife snaps out just as quick with a wrist flick. It's
kind of like the ignorant rhetoric about "assault weapons".
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 07, 2019 01:42PM
How many more things are going to get banned before governments finally
understand that bans and laws only apply to law abiding citizens and have no
effect on criminals. People who intend to commit a crime do not care about the
law and will carry out their desired action regardless of the law which applies.
People who carry guns legally do not commit the crimes but they are the ones
who are affected by the laws.
GAK67 Report This Comment Date: December 08, 2019 07:21AM
It amazes me just how myopic many of you are when it comes to gun control.
"All the gun laws do is change the weapon people use to kill other
people". That is total crap!. I'm not saying that gun control laws won't
lead to a change of weapon people use to kill other people, but that's not all
it will do. If the London Bridge attacker had a gun the death toll would have
been higher, so gun control laws also reduced the death toll.
"you can only legislate away self protection". More crap! The public
stepped in with fire extinguishers and a narwhal tusk. Gun control laws did not
take away their self protection, although I truly believe that those that
stepped in were trying to protect others, rather than themselves.
"While they are at it they should ban and remove all motor vehicles as
well". I believe America, like most other countries, already has vehicle
control laws. There are minimum maintenance requirements, you have to show you
are competent to use them, there are rules you need to follow when you use them,
and if you mis-use them you can have your right to use them removed. Surely
something that is designed to kill as it's primary purpose (guns), should have
much stricter control!
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 08, 2019 01:27PM
Yes if he had a gun the death toll could have been higher but if others had
been armed he might have chosen a softer target where others are not armed or he
might have been dealt with after the first shot.
The people did indeed step in and prevent the guy guy from taking more lives but
it doesn't always turn out like this. Attackers usually choose places where
nobody would be armed and he thinks he can do his deed without fear of being
stopped.
About the comment about motor vehicles, I was talking bout England trying to ban
knives now and how ridiculous it is. If the attacker had used a car or a truck
to kill people would they chose to ban them, no, it would be too difficult but a
knife they can ban because nobody will object much and it will look like the
government is trying to protect them. Again blaming the weapon instead of the
person using it. Governments can't take on the big job of dealing with violence
itself.
GAK67 Report This Comment Date: December 08, 2019 06:46PM
"but if others had been armed he might have chosen a softer target where
others are not armed" - so you're admitting that having 'law abiding'
citizens armed would do nothing but push the violence to other areas, not stop
the violence or prevent further killing. At least we can agree on that.
Loner Report This Comment Date: December 08, 2019 08:19PM
Gun vs. no gun. In this case that's an interesting proposition that we will
never know. And no one really wants to find out.
The banquet hall was hosting the 5th anniversary of Learning Together, that
brings together criminal offenders with others involved in higher education:
[
www.bbc.com]
So attending the conference were ex-criminals, corrections officers, banquet
hall staff, and (I'll just call them) graduate students. If the attendees were
only graduate students (there for a different purpose) the Polish national
Lukasz would have had a harder time of it or maybe have been killed. The
graduate students most likely would have just pooped their drawers and died. But
the ex-criminals, and to some lesser extent the corrections officers, surely
know shit when they see it. Add in some of the staff to fill in the gaps (and
that is only because of the presence of a couple bad ass guys) and they have
their defense. Gun or no gun the criminal knows when he is fucked and isn't
going to be too happy about the situation. I think that it's safe to say that if
Khan had a gun there would have been a higher death toll and Khan probably would
have escaped (if he wanted to) only to be apprehended later. But because of the
people that were present at the conference some immediate response to the attack
was a certainty. Khan actually chose the wrong target.
GAK67, I don't know where you are from. But in the USA we have a 2nd amendment
and we are keeping it. And all the whining around the world (and inside our
comfy USA bubble for that matter) won't change that.
Oh I need to add that (Khan)gun or no gun, if someone attending had been armed
with a gun Khan is dead on the spot.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2019 08:25PM by Loner.
pro_junior Report This Comment Date: December 09, 2019 04:06AM
but what if he had a hammer? have Any of you even thought about that???
Loner Report This Comment Date: December 09, 2019 05:15AM
If he had a hammer
He'd hammer in the morning
He'd hammer in the evening
All over Britannia
He'd hammer out danger
He'd hammer out a warning
He'd hammer out love between
His brothers and his sisters
All over Britannia
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 10, 2019 01:58PM
I guess what I am saying is, if law abiding citizens carry guns it does not
mean violence would ensue. Violence only happens when criminals carry guns and
no amount of laws will ever stop that violence, criminals do not obey the laws.
pulse Report This Comment Date: December 11, 2019 03:21AM
And the good thing is under no circumstances can a law abiding person crack and
go nuts with that gun. Everyone's a winner.
GAK67 Report This Comment Date: December 12, 2019 05:41AM
"Violence only happens when criminals carry guns" - more total crap!
Violence happens in many ways, not just with guns, and a lot of violence is
committed by people who are not criminals until the violence occurs.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 12, 2019 01:54PM
GAK
""Violence only happens when criminals carry guns" - more total
crap! Violence happens in many ways, not just with guns, and a lot of violence
is committed by people who are not criminals until the violence
occurs."
_______________________
So you do understand that violence does occur even without guns. So why blames
the guns and try to remove them from law abiding people? Why not try to blame
and fix the underlying cause of the violence human beings?
Pulse
"And the good thing is under no circumstances can a law abiding person
crack and go nuts with that gun. Everyone's a winner."
_____________________________________________
Yes flawed people can go nuts but that number is really low and it would not be
the gun that caused them to turn. Again, why take the easier route and ban guns
instead of working to try to change human behavior?
pulse Report This Comment Date: December 13, 2019 03:29AM
Yeah. You'll never get me to agree that guns are a good thing, so ..
Yes, anybody can go nuts. But it's a fuckload easier to cause massive damage
with one than anything else. It's really that simple.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 13, 2019 01:55PM
They can cause massive damage with many other things as well, like a car/truck
or a bomb. You are entitled to your opinion of guns but why should you and
others force your opinions on the rest of us by banning guns? It is possible
that someday you may have a situation where you wish you had a gun and hopefully
someone with a gun comes to your rescue.
GAK67 Report This Comment Date: December 14, 2019 02:57AM
I agree with Pulse. Banning guns (or even certain types of guns) will not
eliminate violence, but it will make it harder, so it should at least be
considered.
And aren't you forcing your opinion on guns onto others by not banning them? I'm
not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, just that using that as an
argument is more crap.
pulse Report This Comment Date: December 14, 2019 03:33AM
I'm not forcing my opinion on anybody. Couldn't give less of a shit what
happens in the US if I tried.
Go forth, shoot each other
Loner Report This Comment Date: December 14, 2019 04:32PM
Seems like a lot of key strokes of not giving a shit.
pulse Report This Comment Date: December 15, 2019 04:55AM
Umm yeah. Massive exertion that one.
pulse Report This Comment Date: December 16, 2019 05:02AM
You like bang bang? I like bang bang.
Bang bang baby.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 16, 2019 01:53PM
I am not forcing my opinions on others just by voicing my opinions. It is the
ones who try to change the laws and remove our rights who are trying to force
their opinions of others. Banning guns when we have a right to keep and bare
arms is forcing people to comply with one's opinion.
Loner Report This Comment Date: December 16, 2019 03:52PM
I don't think that your bangs match.
GAK67 Report This Comment Date: December 17, 2019 08:57AM
jgoins - you really don't get it. Either you're stupid, or you're so focused on
your opinion you can't see the logic of others, or you're being deliberately
beligerent.
Your opinion is to not ban guns. Other's have the opinion to ban guns. If one
side's opinion is forcing something on the other side, then the opposite is also
true. Less than 5% of the world's population has the constitutional right to
bear arms, so your opinion to allow guns, or to encourage guns, or saying that
law abiding citizens carrying guns would reduce violence, is forcing your
opinion on others.
And your right to bare arms is of no concern to me - I don't care whether you
wear sleeves or not. I think you mean bear arms.
pulse Report This Comment Date: December 17, 2019 01:21PM
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 17, 2019 01:41PM
jgoins - you really don't get it. Either you're stupid, or you're so focused on
your opinion you can't see the logic of others, or you're being deliberately
beligerent.
----------------------------------
Well Gak, Insulting people is not the way to sway their opinions. Insults are
a sign that one is losing the debate and I think you will find in my past posts
over the years that I seldom to almost never use insults.
Some people are so intent on removing guns and gun rights that they do not want
to even try changing human nature which is the real cause of violence, whether
it is gun violence or knives vehicles or even fists. I would rather carry a gun
for protection and have done so for over 4 decades then take a chance my family
will be harmed by violence in some form.
Loner Report This Comment Date: December 17, 2019 04:04PM
Pulse, PETA just put a contract out on you.
pulse Report This Comment Date: December 18, 2019 10:14AM
Man I had the best steaks (plural) for lunch today. Vendor lunch, tasty stuff.
Full blood wagyu and nice eye fillet.
PETA are great. They can eat their salads, I'll eat their steaks.
GAK67 Report This Comment Date: December 19, 2019 09:13AM
Well Gak, Insulting people is not the way to sway their opinions.
--------------------------------
I agree with you on that point and I apologise for questioning your idiocy.
However, repeating the same argument over and over is also not the way to sway
opinion.
pro_junior Report This Comment Date: December 19, 2019 11:04PM
pro_junior Report This Comment Date: December 20, 2019 07:15PM
