they be shootin' each other up in texas!

lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
smellzlikeskunkyum said:
in fact i bet michigan has more guns per capita than most places in the usa. hunting/crime fuel it big time. Saginaw is bad for retaliation shootings. in flint a Church got shot up during a funeral the other day. it was a retalition hit. some rappers got into it in flint back a few years ago and a LOT of retalition shots went around. fire bombs and kids gettin hurt.... sad shit.

i agree fight like men and save your guns for when u REALLY need them
Click to expand...

Violence in Flint is high because there are no jobs in this shithole, therefore there is more crime. Its not because there is more guns. If that was true, Texas would have the highest crime rate, right?
 
mr2shim

mr2shim

Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
Violence in Flint is high because there are no jobs in this shithole, therefore there is more crime. Its not because there is more guns. If that was true, Texas would have the highest crime rate, right?
Click to expand...
Yep, poverty stricken areas will always have higher crime rate. It's just how it works. Texas has TONS of guns, so by right they should have a much higher crime rate than states like Illinois. Crime rate is through the roof in Chicago which hilariously enough Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Doesn't stop criminals though does it? Gun crime may have went down a few % in Chicago but overall crime is on the steady up-tick.
 
C

CrescentFresh

New Member
mr2shim said:
Yep, poverty stricken areas will always have higher crime rate. It's just how it works. Texas has TONS of guns, so by right they should have a much higher crime rate than states like Illinois. Crime rate is through the roof in Chicago which hilariously enough Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Doesn't stop criminals though does it? Gun crime may have went down a few % in Chicago but overall crime is on the steady up-tick.
Click to expand...
i wish the government would stop sending out internet psy ops agents like uncle buck to tell us that guns are bad
 
Saltrock

Saltrock

Active Member
Harrekin said:
He could've "come back" with: a knife, bat, hammer, glass bottle, brick, screwdriver, sword, syringe, meat hook, golf club, tennis racket, hockey stick, motorbike helmet, knuckle dusters, crudely constructed flamethrower, petrol bomb, pipe bomb, piece of a broken window, a car, aeroplane, barbed wire on a stick...etc.

Lets blame the gun tho.
Click to expand...

You are right he could have come back with all those weapons, the point is he didn't. Other then your crudely constructed flamethrower and airplane, those other weapons are more feasible to bring back to a fight. So how are you going to argue that those weapons you listed above are remotely as dangerous as a gun? I would think a hammer, bat, golf club, knife would be just accessible if not more then a gun. So why didn't he pick up those other weapons? My answer is, 1. he is a pussy and 2. It is the easiest way to kill a man out of all those weapons you listed above. All the weapons you listed would require some hand to hand combat. He could have as easily went back to the car and got a tire wrench, BUT he did not.

So yes there is tend to blame the ease in access to guns and the instantaneous devastation they potentially have.

The right argues more guns which seems funny to me, just because a good guy has a gun doesn't mean he will be at the right place at the right time. Most of these incidents happen so quick that most of the carnage is over by the time even onsite authorities can respond. Who is to say the good gun owner will shoot the right person. Who is to say that if multiple good guys with a gun mistake each other for being the bad guy? In the gabby giffords gun incident, the good guy with the gun almost shot the good guy who took the gun away from the bad guy. The scenes are chaotic, confusing and to expect more guns is going to make things better might in all actuality make things worse. I am not saying there may some instances where a good guy with a gun will be at the right place at the right time and takes out a bad guy before he can do more damage. But on the same token you can't say that more good people with guns will result in good outcomes every time.

Peace
Salt
 
C

CrescentFresh

New Member
Saltrock said:
You are right he could have come back with all those weapons, the point is he didn't. Other then your crudely constructed flamethrower and airplane, those other weapons are more feasible to bring back to a fight. So how are you going to argue that those weapons you listed above are remotely as dangerous as a gun? I would think a hammer, bat, golf club, knife would be just accessible if not more then a gun. So why didn't he pick up those other weapons? My answer is, 1. he is a pussy and 2. It is the easiest way to kill a man out of all those weapons you listed above. All the weapons you listed would require some hand to hand combat. He could have as easily went back to the car and got a tire wrench, BUT he did not.

So yes there is tend to blame the ease in access to guns and the instantaneous devastation they potentially have.

The right argues more guns which seems funny to me, just because a good guy has a gun doesn't mean he will be at the right place at the right time. Most of these incidents happen so quick that most of the carnage is over by the time even onsite authorities can respond. Who is to say the good gun owner will shoot the right person. Who is to say that if multiple good guys with a gun mistake each other for being the bad guy? In the gabby giffords gun incident, the good guy with the gun almost shot the good guy who took the gun away from the bad guy. The scenes are chaotic, confusing and to expect more guns is going to make things better might in all actuality make things worse. I am not saying there may some instances where a good guy with a gun will be at the right place at the right time and takes out a bad guy before he can do more damage. But on the same token you can't say that more good people with guns will result in good outcomes every time.

Peace
Salt
Click to expand...
If everyone has a gun people are way less likely to get into fights. Why would you start shit with a man with a gun?
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Saltrock said:
You are right I forgot, the wild west everybody had a gun and yet no one shot each other.

Peace
Salt
Click to expand...
life in the wild west was far safer than it is in areas on the front lines of the "War On Poverty"

the shootout at the OK corral was national news because it was unusual.

today it wouldnt even lead the local station's broadcast in detroit or los angeles.

you assume, based on TV and movies that the west was overrun with professional gunfighters, bandits and desperadoes engaging in shootouts behing the swinging doors of every saloon.

do you also believe the Flintstones is a historical documentary accurately depicting the daily life of early man?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Saltrock said:
You are right I forgot, the wild west everybody had a gun and yet no one shot each other.

Peace
Salt
Click to expand...
Murder rates in the Wild West were about 1/4 what they are per capita in the US today.

You can thank me for your bitch slap of actual history later.
 
Winter Woman

Winter Woman

Well-Known Member
smellzlikeskunkyum said:
you did mean to say MICHIGAN right??? bad gun violence issues... really bad. Flint Pontiac Saginaw and Detroit are wastelands in parts.

Hell just recently they finally caught the I-96 shooter. he shot like 20 random cars over the course of a few months.

I have bullet holes on my property near flint. flint and detroit are certainly the worst. youngest known school shooting before sandy hill was right by me. Kayla rolland. google it.
Click to expand...
Please. The most of the real violence is in Detroit. Heartless S.O.B's.

In a long and distance time ago (when the Piston's won a championship) the old men of the neighborhood at Livernois and McNichols decide to protect their hood. They sat on top of their roofs with long guns. They knew the crackheads would use this as an excuse to go crazy. No one was shot, just the show of force stopped them in their tracks.

I don't think you can pry the guns out of the hands of an older black man in the inner city.
 
Winter Woman

Winter Woman

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
life in the wild west was far safer than it is in areas on the front lines of the "War On Poverty"

the shootout at the OK corral was national news because it was unusual.

today it wouldnt even lead the local station's broadcast in detroit or los angeles.

you assume, based on TV and movies that the west was overrun with professional gunfighters, bandits and desperadoes engaging in shootouts behing the swinging doors of every saloon.

do you also believe the Flintstones is a historical documentary accurately depicting the daily life of early man?
Click to expand...
You mean Chicago and San Fran, don't you?
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Murder rates in the Wild West were about 1/4 what they are per capita in the US today.

You can thank me for your bitch slap of actual history later.
Click to expand...
Yes, because we all know that meticulous records were kept back then...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top