Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Sure you can say "im Hispanic and i own a gun" but it means jack squat.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Show me the blacks the latinos the gays of major US cities supporting guns! Show me the evidence!
Politicians/Media Refuse "proudly Gun Free" Sign
Politicians/Media refuse "proudly gun free" sign
It means a lot to me. I don't give a *** if it matters to you.
Stop playing the minority card! I am not going to find the facts where Chicago and DC with Gun Bans have had higher crime/murder rates. You have been shown this. You disregard it. Go search for the answer yourself if you do not believe. Then choose to ignore it. Then argue more.
[+]
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »
Stop playing the minority card! I am not going to find the facts where Chicago and DC with Gun Bans have had higher crime/murder rates. You have been shown this. You disregard it. Go search for the answer yourself if you do not believe. Then choose to ignore it. Then argue more.
You think San Francisco doesn't have hispanics LOL Try harder you're still failing. You think latinos and blacks only live in DC and Chicago hahahaahahaha
Quote:
Show me the blacks the latinos the gays of major US cities supporting guns! Show me the evidence!
Fenrir.Terminus said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Why does the debate regarding banning guns entirely completely keep foaming to the surface?
People keep shooting people at schools. :(
The wingnuts have put forth their ideas to ban guns entirely and that was quickly shelved by the more moderate members of government.
What we're left with is background checks, mental health evaluations and ammo limitations versus doing nothing other than pumping out more guns so the gun lobby can make $$$$
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Why does the debate regarding banning guns entirely keep foaming to the surface?
[+]
Even blanks, ammo designed specifically not to kill, can kill, that's how effective a weapon a gun is.
Your argument only shifts the definition of weapon from the gun to the ammo however.
Your argument only shifts the definition of weapon from the gun to the ammo however.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »
Yes, as a minority, we have been subject to violent crimes based on racism. Yes I have also been subject to prejudice and racism.
Get in tune with reality. The average white american in middle america doesn't need to worry about her kids getting held up or a drive by. They don't need to worry about their kids joining gangs.
The mom in Compton on the other hand does. Granted it's not as bad as it was in the 90's, but it isn't Beverly Hills ok... and its not due to racism. That's my point.
Go tell all the Puerto Rican/mexican/Salvi/Black moms who had their sons killed via guns. Go tell them how guns would have made the situations better. I dare you to walk into Compton or Watts and tell the African American or Mexican mom that. I dare you!
no, again we're not. You are the only one who brought it up, pull your head out of your ***.
People's emotional reactions don't qualify as a good source.
[+]
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Get in tune with reality.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Granted it's not as bad as it was in the 90's
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Go tell all the Puerto Rican/mexican/Salvi/Black moms who had their sons killed via guns. Go tell them how guns would have made the situations better. I dare you to walk into Compton or Watts and tell the African American or Mexican mom that. I dare you!
Cerberus.Eugene said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Why does the debate regarding banning guns entirely keep foaming to the surface?
So unlimited guns with no checks while we hide behind the 2nd amendment? ***, I cant wait to shout fire in a crowded theater and hide behind the 1st.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Fenrir.Terminus said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Why does the debate regarding banning guns entirely completely keep foaming to the surface?
People keep shooting people at schools. :(
The wingnuts have put forth their ideas to ban guns entirely and that was quickly shelved by the more moderate members of government.
What we're left with is background checks, mental health evaluations and ammo limitations versus doing nothing other than pumping out more guns so the gun lobby can make $$$$
1.5 of those things we could probably agree on as well.
I don't like the idea of something that isn't up to due process restricting people's rights.
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
no, again we're not. You are the only one who brought it up, pull your head out of your ***.
People's emotional reactions don't qualify as a good source.
People's emotional reactions don't qualify as a good source.
I supposed we should disregard individuals who ACTUALLY have experienced gun violence- they know nothing.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Cerberus.Eugene said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Why does the debate regarding banning guns entirely keep foaming to the surface?
So unlimited guns with no checks while we hide behind the 2nd amendment? ***, I cant wait to shout fire in a crowded theater and hide behind the 1st.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
You think San Francisco doesn't have hispanics LOL Try harder you're still failing. You think latinos and blacks only live in DC and Chicago hahahaahahaha
[+]
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
no, again we're not. You are the only one who brought it up, pull your head out of your ***.
People's emotional reactions don't qualify as a good source.
People's emotional reactions don't qualify as a good source.
I supposed we should disregard individuals who ACTUALLY have experienced gun violence- they know nothing.
You still can't look past the gun and attribute it to guns themselves.
No, I don't really care what dead gang members families think about guns, I really don't. Drive by's (and innocent bystanders) do happen though, but the fault isn't that of the weapon, it is that of the criminals who fired it.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Cerberus.Eugene said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Why does the debate regarding banning guns entirely keep foaming to the surface?
So unlimited guns with no checks while we hide behind the 2nd amendment? ***, I cant wait to shout fire in a crowded theater and hide behind the 1st.
Not a good comparison. You rights end when you begin to impede the rights of others or threaten others, like shouting Fire or making a verbal realistic threat. Just because we have the right to own guns does not mean that we have the right to point them at someone randomly.
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »
You lost, me, what the *** am I suppose to say to them? Chill out!
You:"Miss I'm sorry your son was a victim of gun violence. But I have never experienced gun violence on the scale to you so I know better. Your son would have been alive had you and him been armed with guns."
Mom: "but my son had a gun thats what got him killed"
You: "No miss miss I know better"
Jetackuu said: »
No, I don't really care what dead gang members families think about guns
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Carbuncle.Skulloneix said: »
You lost, me, what the *** am I suppose to say to them? Chill out!
You:"Miss I'm sorry your son was a victim of gun violence. But I have never experienced gun violence on the scale to you so I know better. Your son would have been alive had you and him been armed with guns."
Mom: "but my son had a gun thats what got him killed"
You: "No miss miss I know better"
edit: you can't really compare gang violence to the rest of America, you really can't.
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
A lot of them did have guns, as they too were criminals.
edit: you can't really compare gang violence to the rest of America, you really can't.
edit: you can't really compare gang violence to the rest of America, you really can't.
Jetackuu said: »
you can't really compare gang violence to the rest of America, you really can't.
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
Not a good comparison. You rights end when you begin to impede the rights of others or threaten others, like shouting Fire or making a verbal realistic threat. Just because we have the right to own guns does not mean that we have the right to point them at someone randomly.
A background check or submitting to a mental evaluation isn't impeding on the rights of others when the current path of "unlimited guns" impedes on the life and liberty of those living in the inner city as opposed to their suburban/rural counterparts who face far lower rates of gun violence.
I'm willing to concede that ammo limitations are an impediment but I turn the debate back to the NRA who have nothing to say other than "buy more guns, it'll keep you safe".
[+]
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
A lot of them did have guns, as they too were criminals.
edit: you can't really compare gang violence to the rest of America, you really can't.
edit: you can't really compare gang violence to the rest of America, you really can't.
no, they also participate in other unorganized crimes, but for the most part, they do.
I don't really care about statistics of death or their families from groups of criminals.
If you want to do things to help clean up the streets, and actually punish criminals then do so, don't go after law abiding citizens because you're upset about cousin Jose getting shot up because he got caught up in a gang war.
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
A lot of them did have guns, as they too were criminals.
The ease of guns available in the South and then funneled up the gun corridor to the NE states is a huge contributor to gun violence in the NE.
Why is this? Because you can buy guns blindfolded in the South.
Why is this? Because you can buy guns blindfolded in the South.
[+]
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
A lot of them did have guns, as they too were criminals.
edit: you can't really compare gang violence to the rest of America, you really can't.
edit: you can't really compare gang violence to the rest of America, you really can't.
Jetackuu said: »
you can't really compare gang violence to the rest of America, you really can't.
Jetackuu said: »
A lot of them did have guns, as they too were criminals.
I thought I already said to not be facetious.
Gang members are criminals, there's anti-gang laws. Criminals having guns is another crime.
Again: people's emotional reactions really don't matter, nor do gangs in regards to people's rights. If you want to combat gang issues, then combat gang issues, the guns aren't the issue.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
Not a good comparison. You rights end when you begin to impede the rights of others or threaten others, like shouting Fire or making a verbal realistic threat. Just because we have the right to own guns does not mean that we have the right to point them at someone randomly.
A background check or submitting to a mental evaluation isn't impeding on the rights of others when the current path of "unlimited guns" impedes on the life and liberty of those living in the inner city as opposed to their suburban/rural counterparts who face far lower rates of gun violence.
I'm willing to concede that ammo limitations are an impediment but I turn the debate back to the NRA who have nothing to say other than "buy more guns, it'll keep you safe".
The guns aren't impeding on anybody, the criminals are, the guns aren't the ones breaking laws.
Again: actually try to combat violence, instead of perpetrating the vitrol for guns.
For law abiding citizens, when they want to protect themselves against criminals, they should arm themselves.
A criminal wants to defend themselves? they can start by not being a criminal.
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
just about all of it.
Are you honestly telling me that owning a gun holds no consequence or potential for misfortune regardless of how responsible, trained, or qualified the owner is?
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
The ease of guns available in the South and then funneled up the gun corridor to the NE states is a huge contributor to gun violence in the NE.
Why is this? Because you can buy guns blindfolded in the South.
Why is this? Because you can buy guns blindfolded in the South.
Or there's high organized crime in the NE?
why is there high organized crime?
Jetackuu said: »
upset about cousin Jose getting shot up because he got caught up in a gang war.
See that's where you got it wrong. "Jose" didn't get shot because he got caught up in gang war. "Jose" got shot up because his single mom "Maria" couldn't afford to move out of a better neighborhood, Her son was talking home from school when a bullet hit him.
But of-course the rest of middle america just assumes he was caught up in gang-violence. Because they know so much about the family in the Bronx and Compton.
volkom said: »
treat all the gangs as terrorists!
or they could adjust laws to actually put violent offenders in jail, instead of overpopulating them with victimless crimes, while letting violent criminals roam the streets.
[+]
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
upset about cousin Jose getting shot up because he got caught up in a gang war.
See that's where you got it wrong. "Jose" didn't get shot because he got caught up in gang war. "Jose" got shot up because his single mom "Maria" couldn't afford to move out of a better neighborhood, Her son was talking home from school when a bullet hit him.
But of-course the rest of middle america just assumes he was caught up in gang-violence. Because they know so much about the family in the Bronx and Compton.
Then arrest and prosecute the criminal who shot him, like we would anywhere else instead of blame the tool.
It's not our fault they're being insensible.
edit: my scenario still stands really though, why he was there isn't relevant.
[+]
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.