Gun Control: Hot or Not?

[DarkTemplarZero]

Blademaster: If I didn't think that lame ass banner in your sig was serious, I'd sig it for comedy, but I just feel bad for you

M2: No offense, but your points flat out suck. Go get laid before you argue with me jk jk, don't stalk me and kill me with your chosen modus operandi.
First of all, google how to build a gun. I defy you to find something that's not either a bad air gun or a cheesey high school physics experiment in magnetism. Bombs I admit are fairly straightforward, a gun requires a bit more precision, otherwise at best you have something that'll blow up in your face.
And really, I don't see how this topic of people liking to use weapons other than guns relates to gun control, if there are no guns then what's the effect on people who like to kill each other with half-eaten cereal bars let's say? The point is that it's just much more efficient to kill people with guns than with cereal bars. You try to go on a rampage with a knife, you won't get very far, with a handgun on the other hand you can easily and effectively kill a large number of people without too much threat of retaliation unless they have a gun as well.

[mr_pikachu]

You try to go on a rampage with a knife, you won't get very far, with a handgun on the other hand you can easily and effectively kill a large number of people without too much threat of retaliation unless they have a gun as well.

Bombs I admit are fairly straightforward

I shouldn't have to explain how these quotes relate to one another. But considering how you seem to like ignoring the logical arguments of others, maybe it's necessary.

Guns kill one person at a time in rapid succession. Bombs kill a lot of people simultaneously.

Numbers are fun!

[DarkTemplarZero]

True, numbers are fun. However, bombs are not, but I don't see how the issue of whether or not it should be easy to buy a gun relates to the fact that with a little bit of effort you can make something go boom. However simple it may be to cut apart batteries and do whatever else to make an explosion, it's still far easier to go to a store in Virginia and buy a gun.

And don't mistake disagreeing with ignoring "logical arguments", for lack of a better term.

[mr_pikachu]

If it's easy to make a bomb, then what difference does it make what method is used to kill people? One could argue that a bomb would be worse; some could easily take out 100 people in a close space. Take away guns, and the next-easiest method of mass murder does a heck of a lot more damage. As tragic as the Virginia Tech massacre was, it would pale in comparison to something like that.

And I wouldn't have a problem if you were simply disagreeing with the arguments of others. Ignoring them outright and resorting to slandering the people who are actually participating in the debate, however, makes your posts nothing but a waste of space.

[Mewtwo-D2]

on the other hand you can easily and effectively kill a large number of people without too much threat of retaliation unless they have a gun as well.

Thank you for proving my point. If I have a gun, I can stop a shooting spree, thus saving many innocent lives.


Also- building a gun isn't too difficult. My dad showed me how. Anyone who's been in the military can show you how.