• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gun control summed up in cartoon

Specop 007

Diamond Member
So funny, so sad, so true.

Too bad the gun grabbers are just too dense to realize you cant pass LAWS to protect people from LAW BREAKERS.

Click
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.

oh wait...

its true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he was totally carrying those guns legaly.

oh wait....

or lets try this.

its true. I mean, look at VA shooting. banning firearms from the campus sure did a good job stopping anyone from carrying firearms on campus and killing a bunch of people.

oh wait.....
 
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.

oh wait...

its true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he was totally carrying those guns legaly.

oh wait....

or lets try this.

its true. I mean, look at VA shooting. banning firearms from the campus sure did a good job stopping anyone from carrying firearms on campus and killing a bunch of people.

oh wait.....

The point, IMO, is that this is a nuanced issue, and it isn't as simple as "gun nuts" vs. "gun grabbers." I am a gun owner, but I think it's ridiculous to argue, as some have, that allowing unlimited concealed carry on college campuses would yield a safer environment - instead, I'm quite sure it would mean that some percentage of the drunken fistfights that break out every weekend night on campus would escalate into fatal shootings, and some percentage of the emotionally-fragile emo whiners that infest colleges today would successfully off themselves.

If there's a positive change to be made to the gun laws following this incident, it seems to me it would be restricting gun purchases by people with documented histories of certain types of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia or other forms of psychosis.
 
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.

It's perfectly true, when a criminal wants to kill people they aren't going to care about gun control laws. Therefore the gun control laws more directly restrict people?s right to defend themselves.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.

oh wait...

its true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he was totally carrying those guns legaly.

oh wait....

or lets try this.

its true. I mean, look at VA shooting. banning firearms from the campus sure did a good job stopping anyone from carrying firearms on campus and killing a bunch of people.

oh wait.....

The point, IMO, is that this is a nuanced issue, and it isn't as simple as "gun nuts" vs. "gun grabbers." I am a gun owner, but I think it's ridiculous to argue, as some have, that allowing unlimited concealed carry on college campuses would yield a safer environment - instead, I'm quite sure it would mean that some percentage of the drunken fistfights that break out every weekend night on campus would escalate into fatal shootings, and some percentage of the emotionally-fragile emo whiners that infest colleges today would successfully off themselves.

If there's a positive change to be made to the gun laws following this incident, it seems to me it would be restricting gun purchases by people with documented histories of certain types of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia or other forms of psychosis.

Well, I do see your point, and at first I kind of thought that as well. But, I haven't seen that happen any place else where they have become more lenient with CCW permits. Honestly I don't think that many people would be carrying, for a couple of reasons, IMO, most college kids don't have the money to buy a handgun, the motivation to take mandatory safety courses, and a lot of them are probably a little intimidated by firearms. Its also still against the law for you to carry a firearm while drinking, even if you have a CCW permit, or even a badge.

Its not like you would have every kid running out and getting a CCW permit if they were allowed to carry on a college campus. I remember when I first became a cop and got my gun, I was 21 and most of my friends were still in college. When I'd show them my gun, they would act like it was going to jump up and bite them, even after I showed them that I took the round out and that it was empty and the slide was locked back.

As to your last point, I do agree mostly with you there.
 
As an example of college kids with guns. One of my roomates in the house we had at school owned a 9mm handgun, a chinese sks assault rifle, and a 12 gauge shotgun.

Him and I got into it a couple of times, punches were even thrown and, well, I lived to tell about it 😀

Although one night when our 70s party got busted by the cops, the look on the cops face when he showed him his assault rifle was priceless hehe. They kind of pissed their pants a bit but then start jack jawing with him about it once they leared he was a criminal justice major trying to get into the US marshalls program hehe.
 
An SKS isn't an "assault rifle". It's not black 😛

But really, no pistol grip, no detachable magazine, holds 10 rounds.

Originally posted by: DonVito
All that cartoon has taught me (or, more precisely, reminded me) is that most political cartoons are about as funny as a bad car accident.

What about a car wreck involving two clown cars?
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
The point, IMO, is that this is a nuanced issue, and it isn't as simple as "gun nuts" vs. "gun grabbers." I am a gun owner, but I think it's ridiculous to argue, as some have, that allowing unlimited concealed carry on college campuses would yield a safer environment - instead, I'm quite sure it would mean that some percentage of the drunken fistfights that break out every weekend night on campus would escalate into fatal shootings, and some percentage of the emotionally-fragile emo whiners that infest colleges today would successfully off themselves.

If there's a positive change to be made to the gun laws following this incident, it seems to me it would be restricting gun purchases by people with documented histories of certain types of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia or other forms of psychosis.

Speaking of ridiculous.....Try this on for size.

If CCW is legal on campuses whos to say everyone will carry? I would bet that even if CCW was leagl you'd have maybe 1% of the student body carrying. Perhaps a bit more in the aftermath of VT, but you wont suddenly have a 50% carry rate on a campus.

Secondly, whos to say people would carry and go to a party and get drunk? Your making some very far reaching assumptions. Most people, believe it or not, who choose to CCW are pretty well grounded individuals. In other words, they wont carry a gun to a party, get drunk and get into a fight. Most, not all however. But a hot head can already carry an illegal gun to a party to begin with......

As for the emo kids you mention....What stops them right NOW from buying a gun and offing themselves? Emotionally unstable suicicial people can already buy a gun, that has no bearing on CCW on campuses and the only way to effectively remove the gun option is to wave the Magic Wand and remove ALL guns from the country. Because a single shot bolt action will blow your skullcap off just as easily as a shotgun or an M16.
 
Another part of the problem is that in most states---but not Virginia pre April 2007---someone who is mentally ill---like our cartoon sociopath---cannot legally buy a gun.
So the sociopath buys guns on the streets from someone who stole it from the gun collection of either (a) A law abiding citizen with a gun collection (b) A gun control advocate with no gun collection.
 
The anti-anti-gun people, or the 'gun nuts' as they are called, continue to completely miss the point entirely. In VA, this mentally disturbed man bought guns legally. In many other states, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun, reducing his chances DRASTICALLY of even trying to shoot up a school.

But of course all the gun nuts do is cover their ears and hold their guns ever so close and yell YOU AIN'T GON' TAKE MY GUNS NO SIRREEEE while level-minded individuals, well. Get killed.
 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
The anti-anti-gun people, or the 'gun nuts' as they are called, continue to completely miss the point entirely. In VA, this mentally disturbed man bought guns legally. In many other states, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun, reducing his chances DRASTICALLY of even trying to shoot up a school.

But of course all the gun nuts do is cover their ears and hold their guns ever so close and yell YOU AIN'T GON' TAKE MY GUNS NO SIRREEEE while level-minded individuals, well. Get killed.

And you keep missing the point that this happened in a gun free zone, maybe, just maybe if other people there were allowed to carry a firearm they would have stopped this guy before he killed 32 people.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Secondly, whos to say people would carry and go to a party and get drunk? Your making some very far reaching assumptions.
......

Most people, believe it or not, who choose to CCW are pretty well grounded individuals. In other words, they wont carry a gun to a party, get drunk and get into a fight.

By the way, if you're going to try and link violent crime rates by concealed weapon owners, please note the demographics of the areas those tend to be in and control for them.


 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
The anti-anti-gun people, or the 'gun nuts' as they are called, continue to completely miss the point entirely. In VA, this mentally disturbed man bought guns legally. In many other states, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun, reducing his chances DRASTICALLY of even trying to shoot up a school.

But of course all the gun nuts do is cover their ears and hold their guns ever so close and yell YOU AIN'T GON' TAKE MY GUNS NO SIRREEEE while level-minded individuals, well. Get killed.

Absolutely false.
Cho could have bought a gun in ANY state. The NICs check are the same regardless of the state that submits for it.

But I wont let facts rain on your parade. Carry on.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.

and why not?

Which person in the the cartoon would be stopped by the law?

The physcopath or the law abiding citizen?


thanks for playing, you lose.
Law-abiding citizens are perfectly capable of killing people with guns.

Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aisengard
The anti-anti-gun people, or the 'gun nuts' as they are called, continue to completely miss the point entirely. In VA, this mentally disturbed man bought guns legally. In many other states, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun, reducing his chances DRASTICALLY of even trying to shoot up a school.

But of course all the gun nuts do is cover their ears and hold their guns ever so close and yell YOU AIN'T GON' TAKE MY GUNS NO SIRREEEE while level-minded individuals, well. Get killed.

And you keep missing the point that this happened in a gun free zone, maybe, just maybe if other people there were allowed to carry a firearm they would have stopped this guy before he killed 32 people.
I find the suggestion that allowing everyone to carry guns on a college campus would reduce gun-related deaths to be fairly moronic. Alright, maybe someone would've been able to stop Cho, but at what cost? You have a load of young people carrying guns around on college campuses across the nation. Bad things are going to happen more frequently.

Laws are there to inhibit, not restrict entirely. No law enforcement can be that perfect without total loss of freedom.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.

and why not?

Which person in the the cartoon would be stopped by the law?

The physcopath or the law abiding citizen?


thanks for playing, you lose.

Nah, what I meant is that gun grabbers don't want to just take guns from law-abiding citizens only (which the comic seems to depict) but from all people. Actually, I don't support strict gun control at all, I just think the comic is stupid.

Thanks for playing, you lose.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.

It's perfectly true, when a criminal wants to kill people they aren't going to care about gun control laws. Therefore the gun control laws more directly restrict people?s right to defend themselves.

Gun control advocates don't support stricter control for non-criminals only, it's just that the average citizen is the one getting screwed. The comic seems to depict that an advocate for gun control is purposely trying to restrict the ability of one to defend themselves, when that isn't the issue. It is the by product of the issue, which is why I believe that we should be allowed to bear arms.

 
Originally posted by: Enig101
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.

and why not?

Which person in the the cartoon would be stopped by the law?

The physcopath or the law abiding citizen?


thanks for playing, you lose.
Law-abiding citizens are perfectly capable of killing people with guns.

Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aisengard
The anti-anti-gun people, or the 'gun nuts' as they are called, continue to completely miss the point entirely. In VA, this mentally disturbed man bought guns legally. In many other states, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun, reducing his chances DRASTICALLY of even trying to shoot up a school.

But of course all the gun nuts do is cover their ears and hold their guns ever so close and yell YOU AIN'T GON' TAKE MY GUNS NO SIRREEEE while level-minded individuals, well. Get killed.

And you keep missing the point that this happened in a gun free zone, maybe, just maybe if other people there were allowed to carry a firearm they would have stopped this guy before he killed 32 people.
I find the suggestion that allowing everyone to carry guns on a college campus would reduce gun-related deaths to be fairly moronic. Alright, maybe someone would've been able to stop Cho, but at what cost? You have a load of young people carrying guns around on college campuses across the nation. Bad things are going to happen more frequently.

Laws are there to inhibit, not restrict entirely. No law enforcement can be that perfect without total loss of freedom.

And yet the conceal and carry laws dont show any of these similar behaviors you warn us will happen on college campuses. Do people out of college not party and get drunk? Are people in college not responsible?

The bottom line is you are dealing with hypotheticals while we are dealing with facts. The facts are dozens of people killed in gun free zones with no way to defend themselves while the killers were unstoppable.

 
Originally posted by: Enig101
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.

and why not?

Which person in the the cartoon would be stopped by the law?

The physcopath or the law abiding citizen?


thanks for playing, you lose.
Law-abiding citizens are perfectly capable of killing people with guns.

Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aisengard
The anti-anti-gun people, or the 'gun nuts' as they are called, continue to completely miss the point entirely. In VA, this mentally disturbed man bought guns legally. In many other states, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun, reducing his chances DRASTICALLY of even trying to shoot up a school.

But of course all the gun nuts do is cover their ears and hold their guns ever so close and yell YOU AIN'T GON' TAKE MY GUNS NO SIRREEEE while level-minded individuals, well. Get killed.

And you keep missing the point that this happened in a gun free zone, maybe, just maybe if other people there were allowed to carry a firearm they would have stopped this guy before he killed 32 people.
I find the suggestion that allowing everyone to carry guns on a college campus would reduce gun-related deaths to be fairly moronic. Alright, maybe someone would've been able to stop Cho, but at what cost? You have a load of young people carrying guns around on college campuses across the nation. Bad things are going to happen more frequently.

Laws are there to inhibit, not restrict entirely. No law enforcement can be that perfect without total loss of freedom.


Where do you get the idea that "a load of young people" would be carrying guns? First of all, you have to be 21 to get a CCW, so that eliminates most people that would actually live on campus. Second, only a very small percentage would even get a permit and carry. I'm sorry but you do not have the facts on your side. Like I said before, at first I thought the same thing as you, but then when I really started to look at it I realized how wrong that line of thought is.
 
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.

oh wait...

its true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he was totally carrying those guns legaly.

oh wait....

or lets try this.

its true. I mean, look at VA shooting. banning firearms from the campus sure did a good job stopping anyone from carrying firearms on campus and killing a bunch of people.

oh wait.....

And then there is that law about pointing a gun at someone...
And shooting at people...
And hitting the people you shoot at...

Those laws certainly protected the stu... oh wait.

Laws don't stop crimes people. They only define what a crime is and they don't come into play until after the deed is done.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.

oh wait...

its true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he was totally carrying those guns legaly.

oh wait....

or lets try this.

its true. I mean, look at VA shooting. banning firearms from the campus sure did a good job stopping anyone from carrying firearms on campus and killing a bunch of people.

oh wait.....

And then there is that law about pointing a gun at someone...
And shooting at people...
And hitting the people you shoot at...

Those laws certainly protected the stu... oh wait.

Laws don't stop crimes people. They only define what a crime is and they don't come into play until after the deed is done.


Let me tell you where you are wrong.

Bare with me, as this is an extreme example, but maybe you can follow the logic. If we give every U.S citizen that legally has a firearm a nuclear weapon with a big red button on it, would you be willing to bet me that 0% of the people would trigger their weapon?

The point I am trying to make here is a gun makes it a lot easier to kill someone than lets say a knife. (now lets not get into silly debates here). That is why most people chose to buy a gun for protection vs a really sharp knife. An intruder comes in, you shoot him vs going to all the trouble of trying to stab at him.

Now, as a society we cannot assume that everyone will be responsible with their given rights so there has to be a mechanism to minimize the level of irresponsibility. I for one believe that if you are a mental wacko, like the VA dude you should be stripped of rights for which you cannot be responsible for.

I don't even understand why gun advocates see this is a limitation to the 2nd amendment. I think what Gun Control advocates are trying to do is make sure that the 2nd amendment is available for all RESPONSIBLE mentally healthy people. Trust me if they incorporate a better check on guns its not going to hurt gun sales.
 
Back
Top