So a woman shot her boyfriend at his request while recording it at his request. Supposedly a stunt for likes/views. They thought a book would stop the bullet. WTH is wrong with people?! This is the kind of stupidity people who want to ban guns point to, but this level of stupidity would have found another outlet.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Banning guns
Collapse
X
-
This is a special level of stupidity. I'm not one that looks to have guns banned, but I do believe they should be restricted and regulated better. The knee-jerk reaction of "BAN ALL THE GUNS" does nothing. Ban all the blank will not magically stop blank from happening, no matter what it may be. Maybe this kid's life would have been saved if they didn't have access to the gun, or better gun safety education, or better education in general. As a society we need to work together to prevent stuff like this from happening, but compromise is key.
- 2 likes
-
Even with the gun, the man's life could have been spared if they weren't seeking attention by making a YouTube video of her shooting him. Or even by doing some research to see if the book would actually stop the bullet like a Google search or the old fashioned way by propping the book up somewhere (without anyone behind it) and shoot it. Dumbass attention whores are the reason the baby will grow up without it's father.Gonna change my evil ways...one of these days
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nicholas Ward View PostThe problem is always "they had a gun"
Regulate it and the problem will get smaller over time. Arm everyone and problems never end. It's not that hard to understand
The problem in this story was the guy thinking that having his girlfriend shoot him would make for a great YouTube video and get him lots of attention. He could have saved his family tons of heartbreak by getting counseling for a puppy.Gonna change my evil ways...one of these days
Comment
-
Too stupid for words. There is a new TV show that is a cross between Myth Busters and Jack Ass - and I'd tell you the name if I could recall it. Dangerous something or another. The em cee comes up with a new way to almost kill himself every week, but explains why physics won't let it happen. We watched a single episode and concluded that even though they test everything out before aiming at the em cee target guy, eventually he's going to get some bit of random variance and (perhaps literally) bite the bullet. It's like we all knew that Steve Irwin wasn't going to die of old age.“A sinner can always repent, but stupid is forever.”
Billy Sunday
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nicholas Ward View PostThe problem is always "they had a gun"
Regulate it and the problem will get smaller over time. Arm everyone and problems never end. It's not that hard to understand
Comment
-
Well, of course, they didn't actually ban guns, nor were they able to get rid of the guns in Chicago (like, the baddies gave up their guns?). More important, note that the Chicago rate jumped after the Supreme Court threw out the laws. And while all that was going on "gunless" Washington D.C.'s rate plummeted. I'd say we don't have the complete picture yet.“A sinner can always repent, but stupid is forever.”
Billy Sunday
Comment
-
-
The Chicago police have a pretty clear picture of what the problem is, and it's not whether guns are legal or triple dog illegal. Play spin doctor with the statistics all you like. Makes no difference if your penal system has a revolving door.
Edit: Just wanted to point out that I said "penal".Last edited by Draknoir2; 06-30-2017, 06:56 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Coolwater View PostWell, of course, they didn't actually ban guns, nor were they able to get rid of the guns in Chicago (like, the baddies gave up their guns?). More important, note that the Chicago rate jumped after the Supreme Court threw out the laws. And while all that was going on "gunless" Washington D.C.'s rate plummeted. I'd say we don't have the complete picture yet.
Washington D.C. was a problem before the SC decision and it's still a problem.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Draknoir2 View Post
I don't think we have the same definition of "plummet".
Washington D.C. was a problem before the SC decision and it's still a problem.Gonna change my evil ways...one of these days
Comment
-
Originally posted by Draknoir2 View Post
I don't think we have the same definition of "plummet".
Washington D.C. was a problem before the SC decision and it's still a problem.
Yeah, or a drone.
Now, what my NRA buddy and I discovered is that we have the same opinion. If people want to use guns, they should be subjected to the same type of laws that drivers are. Get required training, pass tough written and practical tests (at a different time from the training), get a license to use guns and have insurance. Then enforce the laws the same way we do for driving.“A sinner can always repent, but stupid is forever.”
Billy Sunday
Comment
-
Training and licensing sounds like the Common Sense Gun Legislstion™ the Democrats have been peddling for over a decade. Mayor Rahm is also fond of the "is what it isn't/isn't what it is" rhetoric and, like the D.C. pols, he's quick to claim credit for a fleeting downtick in the murder rate and slow to answer for the chronic blood loss.
Should be easy enough to track down the usual suspects for training... they are well known to law enforcement. Might as well do it the next time they are processed through the Cook County legal system. More gang bangers who can shoot straight means less gang bangers to shoot straight.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nicholas Ward View PostThe problem is always "they had a gun"
Regulate it
- 1 like
Comment
-
In NJ the definition of a firearm includes anything that can propel a projectile by means including air, rubber bands, and springs. If you take a Bic pen, remove the ink parts, chew a wad of paper, and insert it in the pen barrel, you have a firearm. They make no distinction between an Airsoft gun and the actual weapon it emulates. I can hardly wait for people to turn them in at "gun buy back" drives. It gets pretty scary when the toys of your childhood could land you in prison.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Firearm definitions are weird, no contest here. When I was robbed at knifepoint (nightshift at a convenience store) the guy ended up with firearm charges, even though what he had used was basically a high-end steak knife. He was barred from owning or using guns for a certain length of time, with the judge mentioning in his sentencing statement that that functionally barred him from hunting as well. In Saskatchewan (Canada).
I understand that my sword collection qualifies as 'firearms', even though only one is more than a wallhanger. I get that a sword is 'arms' but where does the fire come in?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Perfect Warrior View PostFirearm definitions are weird, no contest here. When I was robbed at knifepoint (nightshift at a convenience store) the guy ended up with firearm charges, even though what he had used was basically a high-end steak knife. He was barred from owning or using guns for a certain length of time, with the judge mentioning in his sentencing statement that that functionally barred him from hunting as well. In Saskatchewan (Canada).
I understand that my sword collection qualifies as 'firearms', even though only one is more than a wallhanger. I get that a sword is 'arms' but where does the fire come in?
Comment
-
Maybe it was a prohibited weapon charge? It was a decade ago. But if what I'm remembering is the judge stretching a good sharp steak knife into a prohibited weapon, that's still a headshake. (In 2010, six year later, my city was trying to ban knives because of a rash of robberies with knives.)
One interesting thing came up on my wide-wandering search: (To go closer to the original subject.)
7. The device known as the “Constant Companion”, being a belt containing a blade capable of being withdrawn from the belt, with the buckle of the belt forming a handle for the blade, and any similar device. Is a prohibited weapon.
Remember that guy on the old board who was pushing these things?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Coolwater View PostNow, what my NRA buddy and I discovered is that we have the same opinion. If people want to use guns, they should be subjected to the same type of laws that drivers are. Get required training, pass tough written and practical tests (at a different time from the training), get a license to use guns and have insurance. Then enforce the laws the same way we do for driving.
Comment
Comment