Ahh nothing beats typing on a keyboard over a mobile phone

This we both agree on.

Referring to US, because SOME not all carry guns around with them. My fault for not being clear. I do not want to see this in Canada. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Thank you, couldn't have put it better myself. A LEGAL weapon that has the potential to kill, or at least injure, without really aiming at targets. Tell me weapons other than guns that do that. I don't know about you, but I have a low tolerance to pain, so not only do I not want to die, I don't want to get hurt either. So if you think it's acceptable to be injured (as long as you don't die), than kudos to you. You sound like it's actually a good thing that those who got shot didn't die but only injured, but wouldn't not getting injured even better??

Yes, criminals will get their guns no matter what (for the 10000th time). But what about for normal folks like me, you, or even James E Holmes (criminals as in gang related, and plus, he wasn't even a criminal until he committed the killing)? Why don't you tell me how would you get an illegal gun, say in a place like Canada? You make it sound like I could just walk up to a random person and ask for an illegal gun.

Which brings us to the point, you said it, no guns, he'll make bombs, and bombs would've been a even better weapon, but he didn't use it, because it's illegal and then don't sell bombs outright in US. So if guns were illegal, he'll probably still kill, but went with a blade instead, because if he's was going to illegal and all out, he probably would've done so in the first place and might even go for a bomb. Although this is just speculation

Finally..

Can you PLEASE tell me, actually, QUOTE me, where I said whether a person kills or not depends on what weapon he has. Actually, allow me to help you on that.


Please explain to me how you still think that I think that banning guns would stop people from killing. Please quote me. Please. I beg you. At least prove it to me.

Maybe these are some points to argue about:
- there's a large variety of guns, and so guns in general are not equally lethal, meaning, a pistol might just be dangerous as blade in terms of the number of people it can hurt and the level of injury, so it's too vague to group guns together in general

- maybe getting illegal guns is a lot easier than getting illegal bombs? so even if both were illegal, one would still probably go for a gun than a bomb, so banning guns only stop those who don't know how to attain firearms illegally?

- maybe ban a certain type of guns? like someone mentioned, something like automatic rifle?

I guess I missed your last post

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm neither for or against carrying guns in public, because someone out to kill can just hide the gun in their jacket. Only thing that it really might help with is stopping people from doing MORE damage from actions that happen at the heat of the moment. NO, it rarely happens, but in the heat of the moment, people DO make mistakes and do something stupid and wrong. Although debatable, in MY opinion, I would think my chance of surviving is higher if someone got pissed and stab me with a knife, than shoot me with a gun. AGAIN, I'm talking about heat of the moment, rare cases, and not about the intentions of the person, but the potential damage of the weapon.

If you think the legality (is that a word?), has absolutely nothing to do with the choice of weapons, than everyone would be using bombs instead.

Again, crazies are normal folks like you and I, unless they are gang related, I don't know how a normal folk would actually be able to get their hands on illegal firearms. It's in my reply above this one.


Agreed.

Finally, I have to correct you...

You keep accusing people of thinking that way, do you have any sources or quotes or anything that people think like that??? Like who actually said that in this thread???

I personally don't see a need to carry guns in Canada, at least not in major cities. Plus, I don't think there's a deep enough gun culture here for it to ever start either. People would freak the f*&k out if they saw a permit-holder carrying a Glock, out walking their dog. Cops would be called and news would be made everyday.

Okay, so your main concern is the damage of the outcome, meaning you're focused on what weapon was used to carry out the deed (more lethal = more deaths), which also means you think it is possible to control what a crazy person will use as their weapons of choice. YOU CAN'T, PERIOD. You can make it harder for them, but in the end they will find SOMETHING that causes the greatest amount of damage, guns/grenades or not. You know that he rigged his apartment with 30 home-made grenades and gallons of gasoline, right? He was set out to kill. Could've killed more people there had he not given up that info beforehand. Hmm, I thought grenades were illegal, no?

A shotgun in the hands of a hunter is what gets him his dinner. The same shotgun in a nut case's hands is a weapon to kill people. Since you agree that crazies will kill others no matter what, then the focus should be on how to prevent them from getting to that point, and not what they choose to use once they hit that breaking point and is too late to turn back.

Just so I'm clear, what exactly is your opinion on this then? You say that gun control won't work and banning guns won't stop people from killing each other. Then you say that you're concerned about the overall damage of the killings, which focuses on what they use as weapons of choice. So if they didn't have guns, things would've been less serious, right? How do you prevent people from getting guns? You make it impossible to get one = gun control. So... where do you stand? I'm confused.

It's implied. People say things and use certain words to convey their feelings and opinions on things. Sometimes it's directly stated, sometimes it's not. You read between the lines.

Not related to this shooting, but to what we've been discussing:

Knives are less lethal...
http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-k...102629246.html
... not.

Closer to home...

B.C. man charged for Facebook threat to copy Colorado shootings - British Columbia - CBC News

:seriously:

The guy's a joke. Too many idiots in the world.

What do you guys make of this? Currently hot news..

I think both side makes very good points but I would agree with Alex Jones and the American public more.

Piers is talking as if we're living in a perfect world where we can take guns away in one night. He thinks that banning guns in America will force everyone to hand in their guns. The reality is, guns are already out there in people's hands. You take guns away from people who are licensed to carry them, they are at risk to those who are illegally carrying them.

Right now, their society is sort of stuck in the middle. Either they go left and hand over all the guns in hopes that all gun violence will stop. Or they can go right and continue wielding their guns to fight off those who irresponsibly uses them.

Piers is arguing to stop guns shooting massacres while on the other side, they're arguing to fight against possible government tyranny.

Either way, guns are in people's hands now, legal or illegal, it's there. To turn back and take them away will take years and years to accomplish and might even have to deal with more shootings by people who still have them.

If guns are taken away, people will just find the next possible weapon/explosive to complete their tasks. Be it knives, pipe bombs, Molotov, gasoline, etc. It's the criminal and violence law they need to tackle. It's the people who are not sane in their mind that needs to be tackled. It's the people who place their firearms irresponsibly that needs to be tackled.

For those interested on this topic, watch the one with Ted Nugent, he made some valid points.

If you get through Jones' character, he makes some points, i suppose, but its really hard to look past his shtick

AJ acted like a child during the interview. He definitely has relevant points, but it's hard to take it seriously when he's yelling and shoving his finger at Morgan.

Because he knows that when he's the guest at someone's show, he's going to be thrown questions that if he doesn't answer accurately, he'll be viewed as someone didn't do his homework. Piers is holding the cards with the answers, and Alex is the one that have to answer them. It's a stupid confrontation tactics to show how dumb you are but really, these questions don't mean jack.

The statistics are there for everyone to see and Piers is refusing to accept them.

Piers is a clown
Posted via RS Mobile

Just because he knows that doesn't mean he should act the way he did. He's doing more damage to his cause by behaving like an idiot.

If he knew what was going to happen, and knew he wasn't smart enough to have a regular debate, he shouldn't have accepted the invitation.

I wouldn't call Piers a clown, because the point he was trying to make was different than the one Alex Jones was trying to make. The discussion Piers was trying to have was about guns. Pure, plain and simple. Alex was trying to have a discussion about crime. And then social issues. And then the constitution. And then drugs. And then the American uprising against the British in 1776. Jon Stewart last night had this AMAZING rant that was incredibly good and coherent and is available online if you're in the US...but not in Canada. If someone can find a place that's posted it to leave here, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Alex Jones needs to calm down. I don't want to listen to anyone who rants and talks over other people. I can't stand that. So rude.

They're always talking over people, so I wouldn't even consider any of this proper debate.

Piers is using interrogating questions to prove his point while Alex Jones is screaming his lungs off to get his statistics across.

In other debates, they're either talking over each other or just throwing insults at each others face. Piers is not going to change anything here so I don't see why he even bother to try. And taking guns away and banning them is not going to help. That is why we have history classes, to not repeat them.

.

Watched half of it and done with. More of a comedy then a real discussion.

You do realize that Jon Stewart is a comedian with a television show on a comedy channel, right? He just so happens to base his topics on current events in a semi-serious nature...

So if you have a debate with anyone who has the correct answers to anything despite them holding the cards or not, it's a "confrontation tactic"?

That's how debates work, you have facts and you structure your argument around them.:suspicious:

AJ was annoying and rude, but hidden within his rant, there were some valid points.

I doubt that the south will rise again, but it was true that the UK is still suffering from violent crime w/ a weapon, regardless of their ban on guns.

His rant about government conspiracies pretty much ruined his credibility, not to forget his colorful speech on the south.


I like that our system prevents a lot of the crazies from aquiring weaponry legally, I think that it's a fair trade between the ability to own firearms and public safety measures.

A complete ban on legal firearms is a mistake, it destroys a way of life, and enables criminals to be more confident with their exploits, knowing that the only people with the guns have to be called in, regardless if the current legal owners only have them for sporting purposes.

Anyone using the term "ban assault weapons" or "ban 'clips'" has no fucking clue what they are talking about

I had to turn off CNN last night due to the ignorance
Posted via RS Mobile

Not saying he's right, just saying that's how alex jones is. I watch some of his shows and he goes off on his callers.

The debates I know are the ones that take turns arguing, not talk over people and scream at each other.