{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Editado por afanoflafear:
3/2/2013 10:07:02 PM
2
wouldn't it be logical to simply ban civilians from owning firearms in the first place?
English
-
Why punish the majority for the actions of the minority?
-
Absolutely not, these shootings could have been prevented if there were more guns present and less gun-free zones. We have less violence than Britain, where guns are far more scarce. Guns do not correlate with crime.
-
But they do correlate with massacres.
-
Which are extremely rare, they have been shown to reduce overall violence, and disturbed people can still find ways to kill mass people. That is a mental issue, not a gun one.
-
[b]IT'S BOTH![/b] Why is this so hard for you to understand!? [spoiler][url=http://youtu.be/5uwAo8lcAC4?t=1m1s]Media has a role in the game too[/url][/spoiler]
-
Editado por DELIVER ME MEMES: 3/3/2013 2:15:50 AMr u srs? you honestly believe that Joyce Foundation garbage? half of all gun deaths are suicides. that in and of itself is indicative of a mental healthcare issue. of the remaining deaths over 90% are gang affiliated violent deaths. and of those children killed statistics, they include the 18-24 age group which certainly isn't a child, because a child is the stage before puberty, which typically is around 13-14. that's right, adult bangers are called innocent children murdered by those numbers. more people die every year by contact sport, bludgeoning and drowning than guns. 33% of all children under 5 are killed by the mother and another 33% are killed by the father, meaning that only 1/3rd of these murders are committed by strangers. this is a MAJOR indicator of a mental healthcare issue. may i introduce you to Heller v. D.C., McDonald v. Chicago? Miller vs United States(1939)? the militia mentioned is a standing group of civilians and every eligible male aged 18-45 is the militia according to the dick act of 1903. and may i remind you that the language of the constitution means the original language in use at the time of writing, not the modern definition (sneaky little revisionists can't sneak so easily). the original definition of "well regulated" is "well supplied; in perfect working order", not well restricted. and yes the media does play a part. because every shooter gets their own week in the spotlight there are waves of copycats everytime, because they want to be in the spotlight as well.
-
Wrong. Blaming the tool is irrational. And banning them would only harm us.
-
How would it harm you if we banned AR15's? Banning all guns would be impossible but if you want to defend your house then a handgun or a shotgun would do just fine.
-
says you, but an AR-15 is actually very versatile rifle for hunting, plinking and home defense. it's actually one of the best and top options. it's very versatile and can be accessorized tactically for individual situations. with the right heavy grain ammo, it actually can penetrate less drywall/wall studs than a shotgun or pistol. iit's lightweight it's comfortable it's compact it's more accurate than a pistol or shotgun because you have low felt recoil impulse and several points of contact. it's much harder to have taken from you in a struggle than a pistol(which yes, can and does happen, even to police officers). with a shotgun, if it can penetrate a human, it WILL penetrate more than a couple rooms in a row.
