Guest Post #3 – The Pro Gun Debate

Shot in the Heart, The Pro Guns Debate

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all Best Gore members who responded to the roll call and sent in their essays outlining the advantages of owning guns. I will soon pass the mike to those who responded, but first wanted to make a few points:

Best Gore is NOT Plagiarism Central

Copy pasting someone else’s words and sending them to me will not get you published. If you can’t put your thoughts into your own words, you won’t get a feature. Not only is it wrong to steal someone else’s writing, it also makes you look like a tool. Don’t do it.

The Today’s Colorado Shooting Inspiration

I’ve overheard something on the radio today and it made me shake my head so bad I decided I had to make a point off it. I don’t recall the names mentioned, but there is this father whose son was shot dead by James Holmes during the Dark Knight Rises movie premiere in Aurora, Colorado. The dad said that his son dove to shield his girlfriend and took a mortal shot from James E. Holmes.

I laughed my mother fucking ass off when I heard that. That’s some movie shit right there. Perfect for sensationalism hunting mainstream media and perhaps something to sell to Steven Spielberg or some other tool movie director, but don’t pull that shit on me. Do you think we’re all dumb to believe a super hero story that someone took a bullet for their girlfriend? I think it’s time for a little “Knock, knock… Who’s there? It’s reality, I’ve come to slap you in the face” check:

No, Sir, your son did not dive to shield his girlfriend from incoming fire. As a matter of fact, he couldn’t give two shits about her. If I were to guess, I’d say your son was a closeted faggot too cowardly to admit to you that he liked to suck cock and only kept a girlfriends to avoid being suspected of faggotry. When James Holmes opened fire, he crapped his pants so bad, he slipped on his own shit and smashed his head diving face first into that pile of toxic trash. He died of blood poisoning caused by evaporation of accumulated semen from his secret boyfriend. God, some people sure are desperate for attention with made up stories. Am I really the last one left who says it like it is? At least my made up story is more believable than that superhero crap. Comon now, for fuck’s sake!

The Pro Gun Debate

Because several members responded to the Pro Gun Debate roll call, I’d like to give space to each of them who submitted their original writing. It takes a lot of time to write a piece of original work and I would like to make their time’s worth. It may end up being a lot to read, but I will separate individual essays and label them with names of the author so you can break it down into separate reading sessions, if you find it overwhelming. They all deserve a feature and they all get it. I apologize to BG members who forwarded me their comments for not publishing them here. I appreciate you commenting on previous Open Posts, but please understand this post is reserved for those who took time to put together an original essay intended specifically for this post.

As a brief disclaimer – each articles is published here in full, as provided by the author. I do not pull mainstream media bullshit on my members by withdrawing words out of context, or otherwise butchering their intended message. And while I’m at it, allow me to also state what I’ve never stated before:

The opinions expressed in this post are those of each individual author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Best Gore. LOOOOL, I totally said it ๐Ÿ™‚

Gun Control, Gun Laws, Gun Crime and the Society – by Buju

Firearms, depending on your location can be a touchy subject to either side of the fence. Pro guns, stricter gun control and as far as complete abolishment of Firearms, are the general opinions. Before we can really get into deciding, favoring or trusting either side, one must simply look at the facts of all aspects, consider their choices, risks and options to protect against a potential threat. We are talking about firearms, and therefore one must also decide their own capability of being in possession of such a powerful item.

One that makes such a choice so light heartedly, is most likely making a decision they could regret, in all forms of regret. Before we end this discussion, I will cite examples which provide positive argument to both sides of the story. I will quote people from both sides of the argument. I will also point out instances which may reflect negatively upon both sides of this, heated, discussion. Make no mistake, this will be in depth and present both sides in a fashion I believe regardless of your view, will make you think. My own opinions and views will be voided and therefore excluded from this discussion, as I intend to present this from a neutral stand point.

The arguments, are without a doubt compelling no matter which view you are listening to. Regardless of the fact that many on either side are simply “going with it” in regards to whatever suits their need or acceptance goals, their opinion will indeed be considered here for the masses inevitably weigh in weather agreeing or disagreeing based on whichever trend fits anyone’s liking. If you want a good example of this have a look at how music is currently conveyed, accepted and liked. Particularly in the USA. Influence is like ripples in a still lake, and reaches far beyond what you can even perceive with the naked eye and basic observation after the fact. This last sentence will be well examined later in this article.

Let us first, start with the obvious. Well, guns are good. After all, the Police have them, and use them to prevent violent crime. Right? The military uses them to quell people who may harm us, no matter what our nationality. How could they be bad? Then again, it has so often been recorded that the government turns its armies upon its citizens. So it is turning its weapons on its citizens! Well, now those weapons don’t sound so good, do they? They are further portrayed in weak light when one observes the criminal activity associated with firearms. Then again, the light is brighter when they are portrayed in a manner which upholds the law and saves lives. To those reading this, the light is starting to look like one of a cheap concert hall with bad acoustics, barely illuminating or projecting the performer and performance, isn’t it? Well, why not divide that light to focus on the real facts and issues.

To begin this discussion, let us approach this from the perspective of someone that has never been directly affected by a firearm. The subject of this view has little or no knowledge, and has never handled or fired any sort of a weapon. They have never been in a situation they felt severely threatened by a person or animal. This person does not feel they need a firearm for protection. Based on the assumption they have no such run in’s, they have no experience for a basis. Sure, they watch the news and have seen it all. They may even look at what some view as questionable internet websites, providing uncensored glimpses with an insight they simply do not get from their local Channel 4 Breaking News Network. They have no personal, real, experience to draw from when concerned with the issue of firearms and firearm abuse right? So their tranquil opinion is irrelevant right? Wrong. People with firearms, legally and illegally, potentially all around them certainly says otherwise. They may be against and they may not own. They may not even have the real world experience. They do however, have the concern of who might be, and who might not be carrying a weapon in their vicinity, and what that may or may not mean. That is more than enough reason to be concerned. These people could be affected by firearms, and more than anything most likely, do not want to be.

This aspect of the argument, more firearm control and regulation, is not limited to those rowing the same boat as our last subjects. As it is also not confined to those, in fact, affected by firearms. This discussion is not restricted to Pro-Gun advocates either. This is something everyone should be aware of. This is something everyone should seriously consider before drawing a conclusion. A neutral may sway one way or another. They are however, certain of whichever side they stand, and with good reason. Looking at some personal accounts of neutrals, one can ascertain that they have some of the more clear headed opinions and conclusions on this matter, not being partial to one or another view.

Legal or Illegal, people around you, everywhere, at all times, may or may not be legally or illegally carrying. Within the line of thinking of stricter gun control and/or abolishment, we have now eliminated everyone in the vicinity that may be legally carrying and capable of ending a deadly situation. However, with stricter gun control and penalties for disobeying this law however, criminals with guns, will be less inclined to expose their illegal possessions, and therefore the chances of random shootings, or non-intended casualties will greatly slacken. People such as Holmes will simply go “well I can’t get a gun to do the job, oh well, I will just continue to suffer until I eventually get over it.”

Without ready access to guns, people have fewer guns, therefore criminals have fewer guns, and fewer crimes involving guns are committed. More simply, when people do not have firearms, criminals will not need them to keep people in check and will therefore no longer obtain or carry them. When criminals can’t obtain them easily any longer and no one has them, they will not need an upper hand anymore, which will ultimately result in law abiding citizens no longer needing firearms to protect against criminals with firearms. What should have been illegal to begin with so we would not miss what we never had, is beyond control now, but a valuable point to the solution. Let us look at some statistics to support this, from places with such gun polices and/or bans…

“Why Was James Eagan Holmes Shooting? There are a million and one ways to answer this simple question and they all, but one would be speculations. There is however one and one answer only which cannot be refuted as incorrect. Why was James Eagan Holmes shooting? He was shooting because he had a gun. An alternative question could be: Why did Aurora movie theater goers died? They died because James Eagan Holmes had a gun. Bottom line, it’s only and solely because James Eagan Holmes had a gun that he was shooting and thatโ€™s also the sole reason why people at the Aurora Movie Theater died.”

“I agree that making the process of obtaining guns more difficult in order to deter your average Joe that is in a bad mood, wants to get a gun, and wants to use that gun to shoot people, will drastically decrease occurrences like this.”

So, looking at the UK, it appears they have low firearm crime. Furthermore, even before gun control really took serious hold, crime involving firearms has historically been low in the UK. It has been said, that the Police do not carry firearms, and do not need to. While this is widely correct, with the exclusion of Northern Ireland there are still approximately 7,000 armed Police in the UK, whom appear to prefer carrying the Carbine, Heckler & Koch MP5SF. Another popular choice for these Policemen is Semi-Automatic Pistols, such as the Glock 17.

Within the UK, and excluding Northern Ireland, fully automatic (including sub-machineguns/assault rifles) over .22 caliber are completely banned. This includes pistols over .22 rimfire and anything more than short barrel. While larger calibers, up to .357 Magnums in long barrel are indeed allowed, ammunition is obtained for those permitted, as sport shooting has taken many people’s “fancy” in the UK. Clay Pigeons and hunting being some of the more popular sport shooting. Self โ€“Defense ammunition is never issued.

Shotgun ownership, while allowed is generally controlled, even simple air rifles and pistols, while permitted, are indeed controlled to some extent. Firearms of any kind are permitted by the Police and ammunition is permitted by the Police as well. Modest air guns are generally not controlled, if the muzzle energy is not over 12ftโ€ขlbf for rifles, and 6ftโ€ขlbf for pistols. A shotgun with a capacity of 3 rounds, 2 in a potential clip and 1 in the chamber, are less scrutinized however anything with a higher capacity requires a Firearms Certificate. To purchase ammunition you must be 17 years of age and have a license. The Scotland act of 1998 was intended to enforce further laws, and stricter rules surrounding firearm ownership, this however has created tension as the British Parliament has since reserved the right to the legislation. When it comes to Northern Ireland, a certificate may be obtained through the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Firearms laws are regulated by the Northern Ireland Firearms Order of 2004, slightly differing from Britainโ€™s own laws.

Britain seems to have a good handle on firearms. One must not forget however, that even before gun laws, London was no “Wild West.” Sure there is history, but never any real trend of gun crimes. A thoughtful mind would wonder if it is simply, guns have had less prominence in this area of the world when it comes to the civilian population, or are these people just more willing to slug it out with fists? The people of the UK are resilient, strong and in every sense of the word honorable. One only needs to look at such events as the Somme, and extend to its other kingdoms, Passchendaele and Juno Beach. As awkward and bizarre as Canadians may be, they are not to be underestimated when it comes to war. Could this be what leads to their lower firearms crime rate? Possibly.

More likely, however, it is the smaller caliber rounds generally available to public and lethality lost. While England and Wales Police reported some 50 homicides including firearms, that is a rate of 0.01 deaths due to firearms per about 100,000 people, in 2005 through 2006. About 6.6% of homicides involved a firearm. In eight years, until 2006, homicide rates averaged 49 to 97 with two of these being fatal shootings of law enforcement. An average of 9.7 a year, there were 107 non-fatal shootings. To compare, in 2004, the US reported some 9,326, per 100,000, the UN reported 4.55 for the USA and some 1.45 to the UK regardless of weapon type.

At the close of the 1990s England and Wales were below the EU average while Northern Ireland and Scotland remained above the average. While there was a spike after 1998 and 1999, the numbers remained mostly static through 2003 and 2004 and fell slightly in 2005 and 2006. The crime rate in the UK is actually slightly higher per capita than in the USA at about 85 per 1000 people while in the USA it is around 80. While it does include injuries from โ€œimitationโ€ and air guns, the crime rate involving firearms has risen some 110% in the UK. Regardless, these statistics show that heavier gun control does affect firearm related incidents, but the people are equally to credit when one simply evaluates them as a people, and knows them personally.

“The question why was he shooting. To the people who say he could do the same with a knife I don’t agree. If he had a knife it would be much more difficult to kill people after the first two someone would take him out and the rest would have time to flee. There will always be murderous psychos like Anders Breivik or terrorists trying to hijack planes the only way to stop this is to try and control guns and explosives.”

“The more cars, the more accidents. The more sun, the more sunburn. The more snow, the more cold. It’s all a matter of substance. The more of one thing is inevitably going to lead to more of another”

Standing in complete and stark contrast to the previous discussions and arguments, the United States, one could say, has rampant problems with firearms and firearm related homicide. However as was mentioned previously, the UK never had a rampant problem even before firearms control. Letโ€™s explore a little about the USA and its past, in an attempt to perhaps gain some insight. We will look more specifically upon time periods where everyone had a gun, and outlaws were more numerous than law enforcement. Our second amendment is looking pretty good right about now, we can defend ourselves in this mostly lawless land.

Let’s head back to the 1880s. The days of Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, Bat Masterson and their opposites, Billy the Kid, the Clemens and so many more that could be named. To understand, you must place yourself in this era. You must imagine, and attempt to understand what it would be like during the migration west. Every day you are facing threats, bears and wolves or coyotes and cougars depending on where you are. Add the Native Americans plundering and pillaging all they can, fighting fiercely to drive the pioneers back, out of their land. Thatโ€™s not all our daring adventurers are faced with. Not to mention sickness, armed criminals roam the wild west holding up anyone they can for money or sustenance. Not to mention, our heroes need to eat!

Hunting must be a daily affair, or you starve. Famine is already knocking at your door every single day of your journey. What do you do? You arm yourself, and there is no other option, other than remain in the east. What could possibly drive someone to take such a risk? Well letโ€™s look at an individual. He has very little here in the east, possibly he is homeless, or rents a hotel room for a buck a week. Scraping by every day of his life when hears of gold, riches and opportunity discovered out west. Through the same looking glass, here is a family, their farm is failing, losing money and ever closer to being taken away by the banks that sold it to them. The man of the house is desperate to provide for his children, and will do whatever it takes to put food in their mouths. Out west we go!!

In this land, everywhere you look, people are armed. The gentleman at the poker table, with a Colt Peterson holstered tightly at this side over there. He does not wear it to keep up the looks of a cowboy, or to be intimidating. He has this weapon for a reason. Perhaps he is a rustler, or perhaps an honest man who sifts for gold and keeps his sidearm close to fend off any criminals that may want his earnings. Banks are robbed routinely. The term “riding shotgun” in a vehicle for example, stems from the man in the passenger seat on a Wells Fargo stage coach; he carried a shotgun to defend from criminals. This is not a time one could simply call the Police. You defended yourself, or you became a victim, and there is no other way.

This dynamic is still seen today. When I said influence is like ripples in a lake which the effects of can linger long after it can be perceived, this is what I meant. While there is increased law enforcement now, as an equal and opposite reaction grown from a century of those living outside the law, a century of the “Wild West,” people remain set to do harm and perform criminal activity to get ahead. One could imply that this could be looked upon as highly aggressive capitalism. It’s me or you, and I’m getting ahead no matter what.

Gangs of today are not much different than gangs of the 1880s. Now of days, they deal drugs, rob and steal for money. They attack those they do not agree with and are extremely territorial. All that has changed is the introduction of drugs, and the loss of the epic bank robbery. While it can be argued that the second amendment gives Americans the right to defend themselves from the government, all points within the last few paragraphs are the more direct intention of how the second amendment is to be applied.

“Ive heard people say ‘a government should fear its people rather than the people fearing its government.'”

“yea, your founding fathers had a ‘dream’ but that dream has become a nightmare.”
-wicked mama

“guns aren’t the problem, people are, and we have no one to blame butt ourselves”

“So say some rapist decides to invade my home, armed with a knife, or even worse a gun, what advantage would I have? I am a single parent, how in the hell do I defend my kids, with a broom? A Louisville slugger, even Mace is illegal in Canada, so itโ€™s win win win for the armed criminal. I have to take my chances I guess… Or buy one illegally… This would be the only reason I would need a gun.”

Today, criminals are just as numerous as they were back then. They are no less ruthless or willing to commit crimes. Furthermore, with mentalities severely altered and a possession obsessed society, fueled by various forms of music representing everything from committing crime to overthrowing the government and valuing possessions more than life, depending on genre. Sure, we could argue the 2pac and Notorious BIG era of “Gangster Rap” sparked an outburst of gang on gang crime, east vs. west, and that they aptly encouraged this. While somewhat true, one only needs to listen to songs such as “Keep your head up” by 2pac or “Juicy” by Biggie to understand these guys while speaking often of violence and crime, were still saying something to their audience, “Wonder why we call you bitch?” by 2pac is another shining example of this, something that could be reflected upon and learned. So what has changed then? Anyone who listens to any sort of radio playing today’s music will find the answer in a big hurry. There is nothing there, but money, greed, rims and hoes when it comes to hip hop and nothing but depression or anti-government sentiment in the rock/alternative and emo spectrums. The point I am making here, is that where music once reflected the society, now it feels like all too often the society is reflecting the music.

So what does this mean for guns and gun control you ask? It is simple desensitization and follow the leader. Where young kids in black, Latino and yes, white neighborhoods see the big shot gangsters and want to imitate that, they once saw the money and opportunity to provide for themselves. This, my friends is a volatile scenario. This is where the majority of firearm related crime comes from in the USA.

What about crazies?! I hear you all, “wait! Wait! Eric!!! What about the crazies!!!?” These people are of an entirely different breed all together. Where some may argue it is the gun fanatics that become these crazies and commit mass shootings, the opposing argument says that these people are not gun fanatics, and were not serious or responsible owners of firearms to begin with. Take James Holmes for example. Good student, model citizen. He did not own firearms. Who knows, perhaps he had never even fired one. In the few months leading up to his fatal massacre, is when he purchased these weapons and ammunition. This suggests that he bought these weapons specifically for the deed he intended to carry out. Could it possibly go another way? Could he have bought these weapons for fun? Did he intend to become a sport shooter and became drunk with the power he possessed upon realization of what those weapons could do? Possibly.

“I am saying however, that these reminders (people getting mowed over) are an ugly representation of the potential that guns/weapons retain.”

So with a fair view of firearms in the USA, we can get down to brass tack and really discuss the topic at hand. While gun violence is most common in poorer, urban areas generally involving juveniles or young adults, it is still a widely debated political issue. Each state has its own points here and there that differ from one another when it comes to gun laws; the laws are still quite generally relaxed.

“There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.”

When speaking in self-defense, the numbers are low. Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that annually, about 64,615 incidents occurred where guns were used in self-defense. Of 1,000 incidents, that is about 0.2% or twice for every 1,000 incidents. This begs the question; would more lawful gun ownership increase this rate? Criminals certainly have the weapons, so the people need to be able to protect against that. In terms of violent crime, rape, assault and robbery the percentage is at about .83%. Incidents of self-defense involving a firearm showed that some 71% of attacks were committed by strangers, while the rest was roughly evenly split between crimes committed by acquaintances or someone well known to the victim.

That is a scary thought and only serves to strengthen the need for firearms as a self-defense weapon. Not because people need guns, but because they are up against guns. That excludes the fact that they are also up against knives, bats, fists and all manner of inanimate objects that can be used for crime instead of their intended purpose. While firearms intended purpose is in fact, to kill, it is nothing without the intent. A hammer is not a deadly weapon without the intent, but with the intent it is more deadly than a gun used for sport shooting. At 28% of incidents involving self-defense, victims fired upon the attacker. 20% of incidents involved Police using a firearm. During the same period (87′-90′) some 2,628,532 non-fatal crimes with firearms occurred.

While the government at federal, state and local levels curtail gun ownership by categorizing people between lawful users and high risk groups, the ability to completely control firearms continues to elude law enforcement. Weapons stolen from homes and other places are readily available for illegal transaction and sale, and are available other places to criminals or those who are not legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm. To a law abiding citizen, this poses a severe threat. Due to this threat, many people opt to own and even carry a firearm for their own protection should a situation arise that calls for such force.

Self-defense laws themselves, vary widely from state to state. In New Mexico for example, one may meet force with equal force, and deadly force is not solely limited to firearms. Risk of great bodily harm or death, is the standard. In this state, an aggressor may ultimately be a lawful enforcer of self-defense, provided after the initial confrontation they did everything possible to defuse the situation. Within your home, the standard is still the same with slightly more lead way. There is no “Duty to Retreat” in New Mexico, giving citizens the option of immediately “Standing their Ground.” Duty to retreat means, in simple terms, if there is a way to flee, you must, by law, flee. New Mexico has one major flaw to its self-defense article, lack of a “Castle Doctrine” which would protect a victim from civil court by the attacker’s family in the event of a home invasion self-defense incident. The protection would be from a “wrongful death” civil suit, which the family may feel is the case regardless of the potential fact that their loved one was the intruder, aggressor and threat to the homeowner.

In an environment like the United States can so often be, protection of one’s self is a high priority to Americans. They have always had the right to protect their lives and assets, and will never relinquish it. This power has inevitably been abused, and will continue to be abused, weather gun laws are stricter or not. It is therefore Americans will continue to feel the need for protection. Americans in general, law abiding citizens of the United States, simply refuse to become a statistic of violence.

I thank you for reading. I hope I have been able to convey all sides of the argument from an outside looking in perspective with fact and statistic to reinforce my observations of all spectrums. I would like to thank the extensive arguments and great points to all sides of the equation made by my biggest source for personal perspectives, the members of BestGore. To those who made excellent points whoโ€™s quotes were not used, I read your point. All of them, and I respect each of them greatly and individually. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it is through this that we are able to advance and grow as a species, and it is hopefully through this diversity and intermixing we can one day, all get along.

Eric W.

Gun Control of the Masses by zer0sgnl

I am probably one of the very few gun supporters that believe the 2nd Amendment is totally misinterpreted and taken out of context along with the rest of the Constitution. The Amendment simply states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Which during the time the Constitution was written it was expected that every newly established American citizen male would be willing to be in the militia to fight for freedom, remember they just won our Independence. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the 2nd Amendment gives the right to bear arms to those protecting our national security, in other words the National Guard. The masses tend to pick and chose what they want to interpret from the Constitution, but what are the first 4 words in the 2nd Amendment – “A well regulated Militia…” in plain and simple English just as our Founding Fathers wanted it to be for all to understand for generations to come.

The control of guns is an issue dating back to 1911 with the Sullivan Act, in which New York passed a law stating that persons with a gun small enough to conceal must have it registered. This set in motion numerous laws to expand on the 1911 Sullivan Act. The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 in which both are the first established federal laws (licensing gun dealers and the regulating of machine gun possession). The Gun Control Act of 1968 repealed the 1938 Act and increased the feds control of guns including โ€“ requiring any persons selling or manufacturing of guns and ammo to be licensed, prohibiting the mailing of guns and ammo across state lines, prohibiting the sale to minors or persons with criminal backgrounds, and it also included the same regulations on explosive materials, bombs, and grenades.

By the early 1990’s there were in effect 20,000 plus federal, state, and local laws and regulations on firearms and explosives. Also by that time there were millions of acts of violence carried out by the use of guns. So does regulating and making laws on guns really work? Any one fool can see the answer to that question, but just in case the answer is NO.

Do you think flat out banning of guns would work? Like I have read in other posts, the banning of guns WILL just lead to the black market sale of guns increasing and more violence to erupt. Look at what happened during prohibition and the banning of alcohol across the nation by the feds. Did this stop people from enjoying a cocktail? NO. It made poor men (and women) rich and it made thousands maggot food all because the feds wanted to ban alcohol.

There is a way to make the control of guns more logical. First require a background check on anyone purchasing a firearm – you say – “but they already do that dumb ass.” That is true they do check, but only a criminal background as required by law. Have you ever filled out a security clearance packet? It is an outrageous and very thorough check on not just you but the people who know you and your entire history is in question, I’m surprised they didn’t ask for a blood sample. My point is that if this was performed on every single person wanting to by a gun it would rule out people and make other people not want to buy. It could likewise make others look at buying on the black market, but the price would be tripled and would also make them not want to buy. The second step would be to license the successful candidate and require a yearly renewal of the license, much in the way we do our driver’s license. There are numerous other ways to achieve this task, but the obvious is true – what we have now isn’t working.

The price of ammunition has also gone up in the past few years so drastically that I refuse to even buy it anymore. I have invested in reloading my own ammunition, which turns out to be a few dollars cheaper in the end. That being said could raise the taxes even more on ammunition and make us “pro-gun crazies” keep reloading our own ammo. Only those dedicated to their weapons would reload while others would simply gripe and complain, eventually losing interest.

There are currently 40-50 million firearm owners in America as of today that chose not to do what we all have seen in the news over the year (not sure the exact number, but I’m sure some jackass will correct me). If we start allowing the banning of guns completely we might as well just all wear “OBEY” shirts and wait for the feds to let us know when we can breathe or wipe our own ass.


Why Keep Guns Legal by Trooper72

I would prefer firearms to remain legal… And EVERYBODY should have a rifle in their Homes. Just in case. To use against the people that would sooner rob, rape and murder your family… Namely Burglars and Politicians.

People who pay close attention to my posts will notice that I believe Western Europe is rapidly approaching critical mass… Resulting in a collapse in law and order. How are we to defend our families and nations in such an event?

And those of you from Republican nations (that were born in war) are quick to forget. That if your forefathers had no access to weapons… Your nations would have been stillborn. You would still be ruled by Tyrants and Authoritarians.

A ludicrously small amount of Gun owners in their lifetime will ‘go postal’ and decide to turn their firearms on their fellow man. But when they do… It attracts all the media attention. For every one of these events you hear about… There are 20 other instances of firearms abuse by Criminals.

On this site. We are exposed to the worst faces of Human Nature. We never hear of the brighter side to Human nature… Of all the instances where Firearms have saved lives instead of ending them.

The usage of firearms by civilians also stretches into the workplace. They are tools, as well as items of pleasure. We wouldn’t be able to eat the fine foods that we do at such a low price if half the crops have been destroyed by Rats… Or Foxes raided Chicken Coops all the time.

I live in the United Kingdom. I don’t feel the need to carry a firearm with me. Or any weapon of any kind. I am confident enough in my own physical and mental aptitudes to survive any assault. Plus crime hasn’t reached Inner-city American levels (yet). It also helps that I live in a good(ish) area.

Although I am against people carrying firearms on their person… There is a law in Northern Ireland that allows people deemed to be at risk to carry a firearm.

My point is. People should be trusted to own legal weapons… Many of you use a lethal weapon every day… A car…
Many of you interact with WMD on a daily basis… Children. What are more dangerous? People? Or inanimate objects?”

Guns Are a Tool by Sunworshipper

I live with NO fear and am willing to toe to toe with ANY anti-gun fanatic! Logic will rule the argument. No guns is a euphorian/Liberal pipe dream in this sick, fucking society!

Guns are a tool, period! They uphold natural law: life, liberty, and the pursuit of whatever that individual gun owner wants as long as he does not infringe or otherwise harm another individual! Guns protect life and property when used morally. It’s the purpose of the powers that be to glamorize and bastardize our young minds, selling violence as cool and hip! This is on purpose. ALSO, to discount the notion that the U.S. government does NOT brainwash or otherwise warp minds at will is naive. That Aurora, CO shooter may have been targeted for this act.

Most are NOT aware of the lengths the government and contracted private corporations have gone to learn and control the human mind using drugs, energy weapons, subliminal messaging, etc.

A sane human who can see through this shit life and all the mechanization of material worship and how acting like a superficial bastard is the norm, can logically conclude that most people are FUCKING STUPID and FUCKING NUTS! Add to that normal statistical populations of mentally unstable folks caught up in the usual trappings of Western life and take a portion of anybody else in society that are victims of mind control predators and you get a warm, bloody mix of death and mayhem at will… just like the Aurora shooter.

One only has to look at history… ie LSD testing on unsuspecting soldiers by the CIA last century, on and on. Add false flag attacks, if it bleeds it leads news reporting, degradation of our rights, bad cops, etc. and I and a big ass group of other citizens choose to protect what we hold dear with a tool…a gun.

I say live and let live, based on natural law, intrude on me or another and be prepared to be corrected with perhaps the use of said tool!

This is a ‘dead’ argument to me, but if I am selected, I am willing to use logic to make my case!

Media’s Role in Gun Ownership Warping by fOe

It’s of interest to note that the media’s response to mass shootings follows the same pattern; initial outrage, followed by an in depth discussion concerning the suspect’s life, education, personal creed, and potential motive. The latter phase is typically the point where we began to see smiling mugshot photos of the suspect on the front page of magazines and internet news sites, along with a hastily prepared timeline of the events, and a slapdash analysis from the “experts”. One might say that this time tested reaction from the world stage is enough to tempt any ambitious young man who had failed to achieve his goals, but yet still wanted the attention and adoration that comes with accomplishing great things.

In addition to a large amount of money, it takes 5 to 6 years of full time study to earn a PhD, and not even this guarantees that one will find work, or go on to complete research worthy of the world’s attention. However, it only takes one act of senseless violence to get your name in every household in America, something the most dedicated PhD candidate could only dream of experiencing. Through this system of reward, we have created a process through which absolute nobodies can become overnight celebrities, and psychopathic narcissists can get the attention they feel the world owes them.

The tendency from both sides of the debate is to politicize the issue to make a case for or against gun regulations. One could say “If gun laws were more relaxed, he would not have been so sure that the theater occupants were unarmed, and this may have provoked a change of heart in the suspect”, or “if gun laws were more strict, he would not have been able to obtain a gun so easily, and this may have prevented him from acting”. Both arguments are valid, but neither apply here. This man wanted attention; he wanted the world to recognize his genius, despite the fact that he had failed to prove it.

Had a gun not been available, he would have used a sword. Had a sword not been found, he would have used a stick. Had a stick not been laying around, he would have used a rock. Had no rocks been available, he would have used his bare hands. Instead of rewarding this young man with the attention he could not earn legitimately, he should have been banished into the world of the obscure; the fact that he wasn’t is a guarantee that this will happen again.

Outlaws by redazzbaboon

Ok, I can see there is no point in trying to change your views on the subject of gun control, so I won’t try, maybe just attempt to shed a little different perspective on the issue from what you may, or may not have heard in the past.

I work in law enforcement, I’m an avid hunter, and I support gun rights and responsible gun ownership. In my opinion, if the second amendment was repealed and guns were made illegal to manufacture, import, export, and own, (outlawed), by all citizens, law enforcement included, you would have a higher rate of gun crime than we have now.

Reason being if we outlaw guns, only “outlaws” will have guns. This presents a problem for law enforcement such as myself who would be stripped of their firearms as a result of a ban. It presents a problem for the man, or woman, working two jobs to feed their family when one of the “outlaws” puts his gun in their face demanding money. It would be bad all around (in my opinion). With that said, guns are dangerous and should be treated with the utmost respect and care. It only takes a millisecond for a gun accident to occur. People need to be properly trained on firearm safety prior to purchasing a firearm, maybe even teach firearm safety to children when they are in middle or high school.

Who knows what makes people like the Aurora shooter snap… I’m no psychologist, but maybe it just boils down to this new generation of children being desensitized to violence since grade school by violence on television, violence in music, violent video games, etcetera, but nobody wants to talk about banning those things because that infringes on our first amendment right.

It’s too easy to blame the gun. Guns alone cannot kill. It’s impossible. Maybe a little bit of early education on firearm safety would go a long way in the prevention of firearm related accidents, as well as educate people on the benefits of firearms. Remember, there are millions of registered firearm owners in the US we are not all crazy sadistic murderers.

Why They Shoot by jTZAR

I thank you for your efforts in creating this community; I respect your interest in hearing another’s point while keeping an independent opinion yourself. That virtue will keep me coming back.

Gun laws in the United States of America are not the issue here. I do not support the second amendment although I do support the safe use of firearms for the purpose of hunting and target shooting. So, that means there is no reason for any non-military personnel, excluding police, to have pistols or automatic rifles/shotguns.

“Long-guns”, meaning shotguns and rifles having a barrel length greater than 470mm with a semi-automatic action, I support. I suppose I feel the second amendment should be biased as to the type of firearm in question. My support for the “long-gun” is conditional on the existence of an appropriate screening and testing process to ensure that the personalities described in the following essay will be less likely to gain access. (Held to a statistic minimum) However access is not the main issue.

There is a difference between a ล korpion and a Purdey, an AR15 M4A1 (AUTO) and, really, any other “long gun” which beyond length restrictions must also hold no more than five rounds. Fully automatic weapons and all pistols are designed to kill humans. Once more, I feel such weapons should be prohibited for non-military peoples. I hope we are clear on this point.

This topic may not be summed up in a few pages. My aim here is only to touch a few points people often forget in the hope of stimulating healthy and thoughtful argument on the topic. Any system designed for push-button operation is in danger of turning against its intended function. That includes our most precious establishments and the laws which support them. Beyond that, I ask the reader to consider who taught them to fear guns more than people with ambition and bad intention.

Why they shoot is not an issue of the gun alone but rather the combination of things which lead the gun to be used in such a manner. While playing in the schoolyard as a child I was hit with snowballs. Never once did I get angry with a snowball. That being said, I do recall individuals who were particularly nasty and lacking in sportsmanship. (Though, such people are not the issue either) Little can be defined to identify this breed that would commit such acts as we have all heard. We will consider the individual behind the gun and the state of mind required to bring them there.

There is much to be said for losing gracefully. Television today says we all have a bully problem in our respective schools. I was bullied in school and bullied others also. I think in some capacity most of us have been on both sides of that situation. It is foolish to believe that bulling stops when we leave school. Each of us is bullied every time an authority figure exerts control. Who likes the cop that gives them a speeding ticket? We deal with it! As individuals, we are able to accept we were speeding and take the fine.

(We are also wise to fight it in court through proper protocols rather than argue with the officer) We have just lost gracefully and to a bully no less. Feel happy; but we all know someone who can’t do that simple thing. They will argue and if not increase the fine, at least prevent any lenience.

Further, if one were not able to lose gracefully, a suitable justification to counter the feelings of loss with no respect might be to consider yourself superior to the one who beat you. At that point the individual is blind to their own motives; they are just fabricating a reason for their feelings which allows them to remain in control.

Any person who buys their own propaganda is in for trouble. A person who elects to a life of unlimited customization for comfort and ideals (time killing garbage products and reinforcing sources of information) with no concern for views against said ideals and who also refuses to compromise will never know empathy or compassion. Someone might enjoy a daily routine which limited their social interactions as well as skewed their perception of appropriate actions in social settings. Not to blame movies, televisions, etc. but to blame specifically the little soul who was unable to lose gracefully. This person prefers things which can’t argue, and will seek them out in preference.

In this situation, the weapon wielders are simply reaffirming their own respective beliefs and not thinking rationally. Millions of people live like this, big deal! On its own we have nothing more than that feeling we get when our buttons are pushed by someone who really knows us. Our answer lies with the sum of the parts. Education can go a long way but ultimately there is a person who canโ€™t see the big picture for their own ideals.

If a small soul has an idea of faith which is broadly based and subject to questions we are still in the clear. It is, in fact, healthy. There is however, a person who will have a very specific faith. Perhaps it is a faith to an ideal which is based in an artificially reinforced reality lacking empathy and responsibility, but heavy on superiority and offering a solution. What have we here then, eh? Education must be more than learning a sterilized version of history, science and arts. An education requires social development as its core.

In place of a gun, one could have a bomb. Bombs are easily constructed and generally involve more casualties than a random act of violence committed with a firearm would. On the other hand, the knife is also effective, along with countless other things, though perhaps less efficient when one aims to hurt many. Regardless of weapons, the point here is that fear should be placed with the ignorant, self-aggrandizing and uneducated people (with specific emphasis on social education) whom never learned how to lose gracefully and will not suffer another’s point of view. Such people simply believe they are the way and this is the fear that lives among us all. How can we as a people modify the system to
minimize the existence of such individuals?

Balance is the key to controlling all things. If we simply look at the tools these people use, we will never see the parts of the mechanism which may be manipulated to affect balance. It is possible to have a society which allows for firearms while maintaining a relatively low gun death rate as well as eliminating individuals who would commit mass murder.

All weapons, regardless of their name and construction, are but paperweights without an individual to wield them. Going farther, we see that many people who wield weapons are doing so for the benefit of our respective society, or simply for hunting and target shooting. I maintain that most people are good people, though ignorant. A safer environment will never be gained through the restriction of weapons alone. To make our environment safer we need to ensure that people are offered a proper education, not just in the sciences, but also in the social realm. Our goal should be to educate the good people out there, while identifying the small souls before they pick up any weapon or take any action.

Could Guns in the Denver Theater Have Prevented the Massacre by DeadpoolDeadcool

Many people view all gun owners as religious, bible humping people. Well, this most definitely is not the case with me. I don’t desire to have religion is my life at all. I have been around guns for quite some time now and have learned to handle them safely and with respect. Many people have an anti-gun state of mind, and this is understandable. But there are things about guns that are very positive.

America is about freedom, freedom to do what you wish so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. And it can be argued that guns are made to harm people, but in most cases they are used for recreational purposes. It is a freedom that we have been given, some may choose not to utilize that freedom, but that doesn’t mean no one can. I don’t think it is a “god given freedom”, but it is a freedom of survival.

If someone comes at you with intensions to harm you, you should be able to defend yourself. A gun gives you the upper hand in that survival situation. America was founded knowing that the government can turn on the people at any time and that the people need a way to defend themselves from the government. Now, this is highly unlikely to happen, but it is just in case. We’ve all seen police brutality videos, even on this site, and we know what happens in them. If a cop has a gun, I should have one. Not all cops are bad, but again, it is just in case. In a way, the 2nd amendment keeps the 1st amendment safe. Who’s to say the government doesn’t take away your freedom of speech? With guns in the hands of the people, they can’t.

Gun safety is a major part of it, as well as the government making sure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands. As a gun owner, you need to undergo certain courses and safety classes to own a firearm. They have extensive background checks that bars felons from legally obtaining firearms. Criminals are always going to have guns, and to fight them, we need them. Some people do obtain firearms legally and kill people with them. This is the fault of the government, not the gun owners.

James Holmes spent over 14,000 dollars in a short time span on weapons, ammo, armor, and explosive making ingredients. This all slipped past the government. They should have had the ATF or some similar government agency at his apartment the second they saw a man was purchasing thousands of rounds of ammo and explosive making devices. If this nut had obtained the weapons, armor, and explosives illegally, then it would be more understandable that the government didn’t catch on. As of 2010, it is legal for people affiliated with terrorist organizations, in the US, to purchase firearms and explosives.

So they want to stop citizens from obeying the gun laws and keep terrorists buying weapons to kill people. Not a good thing to have happen. So, the government is always responsible for these massacres due to the fact they don’t enforce laws. They may institute them, but they do not enforce them strictly enough.

As for people saying that someone with a gun would have changed the events in Aurora, is pretty dumb. The man was fully armored, head to toe. The only part of his body that was not armored was his eyes. Even if you hit him in the torso, a .38 will not penetrate whatever armor he had. It was a dark, cramped, and chaotic scene. There is no way someone could have reacted and taken down this guy. If they had more than 2 people, maybe, but still those are not good odds. This guys was prepared for war, nothing short of a high powered rifle could have stopped this guy. What should have been outlawed is whatever body armor he had. That is the main thing that was concerning to me. If someone did have a gun in the theatre, they could have stopped him if he hadn’t been wearing body armor.

In closing, I would like to say that no one is right or wrong in this situation. Things like these happen and banning guns isn’t going to come close to preventing them. What will help is interviews with government employed people so they can determine whether or not you are a responsible and mentally stable citizen. Clearly Holmes was a nut, anyone could have guessed that. What people need to do is approach this with a non biased and level headed view. Then you can properly analyze the situation.

Author: Vincit Omnia Veritas

Best Gore may be for SALE. Hit me up if you are interested in exploring the purchase further and have adequate budget.

215 thoughts on “Guest Post #3 – The Pro Gun Debate”

  1. Why do pro gunners say something like: “If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, they could just have shot the killer”.

    Okay, but the fact is that the killer was wearing full body armor. So who would have been shot? Pro gunner: Would you have your child in that theater with everybody shooting around? Probably more people would have died as a result.

    I like Japan as a good comparison:
    US is around 300 million people, Japan is about 127 million. US have very liberal gun laws. Japan has very strict gun laws. US had 12.000 people murdered with a firearm in 2008. Japan had 11!!!

    It makes a HUGE difference. You cannot apologize that people who murder (with easy accessible guns) are all hard core right wingers gone mad. More guns = More deaths by firearm.

    I do not judge US citizens, who want to carry a gun, but it does come with a heavy price, and they are responsible for this, when they don’t want law makers to change anything.

    1. I want to add something to that @FV- If someone in the theater other than Holmes had a gun, I guess they could have shot Holmes in defense.

      The thing is, there was only one true outlaw in the theater that day, Holmes.

      Firearms are illegal to bring to the Century Cinema of Aurora, Colorado.

      Looks like everyone but Holmes was obeying the rules.

      This may not make a difference, but I just don’t think, “if someone in the theater other than Holmes had a gun…” is a valid argument because of the fact that firearms are not allowed on the premises.

      With stricter gun laws, and I mean strict, maybe it would change things to prevent shooting massacres such as the James Holmes shooting.

      I think guns should be illegal, but I wouldn’t want to risk the bootlegging and possibly making things worse since people have already been accustomed to guns.

      This is all I can say regarding this topic.

    2. Just because he was wearing body armor does not mean shooting him would have no effect….

      Any idea what it feels like toget shot, WITH body armor? It does NOT feel very good.

      The point is irrelevant because no one did have a weapon to fire. The point I am making, is that it would have made him flinch, and perhaps take cover, allowing more peoe to scurry out. Would it have caused more deaths? No. If someone had been a CCL holder, they would have been able to make clear choices and chance of collateral would have been minimal. Just like Police are trained to assess and act, so are they.

      1. @buju. In my country security personel and guards in an establishment carry a gun(pistol and shotgun)don’t know about the theater but that could be better than people withperrmit to carry can go inside the theater.

    3. Criminals do not follow gun laws.
      So gun control would just screw the law-abiding citizen.

      Illegal guns are easy to come by. AKs, SKS’s – they’re all over the place.

      And your point about him wearing body armor, albeit a valid point, doesn’t matter. The spook factor return fire would have, just might have made him flee the scene. Also, “body armor” is a very broad description. Did it cover his legs, arms, groin and head? I bet not.
      Without the proper mindset, incoming fire would make a man freak out, as he was not expecting any.

      How many murders in the US are commited by illegal guns?
      Do you want it to be like in Europe? Only the military and police can carry weapons. It’s called “crowd control”.
      People have mortgages to pay, and no weapons to rebell. Status quo is maintained.

      1. @tHunderpussy- as far as I’m aware, he was wearing high level ballistic armour on his chest, groin, legs and throat. As regards gun control, I’m from Ireland where even the police don’t carry firearms. So I’m going to leave the arguments to those in the know

    4. You are making one GLARING omission in your comparison of the USA and Japan.

      You are omitting the MASSIVE cultural and demographic differences between the two nations.

      The Japanese have an ethnically homogenous nation that has escaped the perils of Western Consumerism and ‘MTV generational re-education’.

      Japan is NOT safe because Guns are very diffcult to get… If you bothered to mention the total crime statistics for Japan.

      You would notice that Japan is the lowest in the Planet for: Violent crime, Organised Crime, Sexual Assault and Property damage.

      In a nutshell. Japan is the world’s safest nation PERIOD.

        1. They would be most royally fucked In the event of a national emergency…

          The USA and the RIMPAC alliance are the only thing stopping North Korea and China from dominating the region.

          In Japan’s defence however. In the Fukushima Nuclear disaster… The Japanese people performed with a ‘Chin up’ Blitz spirit attitude that was a real credit to humanity.

      1. Who needs violent crime when Mother Nature is already out to get you? Earthquakes, tsunamis, the resulting and inevitable nuclear meltdown… ain’t nobody got time for guns when they’re too busy running for their lives and rebuilding their country from scratch.

    5. True, but if there was at least one concealed carrier in the cinema, Holmes would have had to have gone into self defense mode and divert his attention from the people running away to the person shooting at him.

      This would have given the people a chance to escape without any bullets flying at them. The concealed carrier may have very well been turned into a bloody pulp from 5.56mm and buck shot, or Holmes may have just given up after being hit, even with body armor, and ran away.

    6. People who murder are all hard core right wingers?

      Make things up much? I am Republican….. I roll around armed at all times…..

      I have never killed someone. I have money says Holmes, is liberal.

    7. You’re talking about body armor almost as if it covers the whole body. Does body armor cover your head? No. Legs? No. Arms? No. Hands? No.

      I say keep the guns and drop the bullshit, simple as.

    8. Japan is in all around better shape than we are. Their government isnt fucking stupid. And children are taught respect and fucking manners there. We dont have any of that shit here. There’s more factoring in besides simple gun laws.

      1. good point. I grew up however, if you were in trouble or did something it was “yes Sir” or “No Mam”

        My children will god damn well call my wife Mam, and find themselves 10 feet away on their ass with a hand print upside their head if otherwise… just saying

    9. I am a pro-firearms supporter, and no matter if more strict gun laws are developed over time, whatever the case nothing is going to change as drastically hoped. Yes recurrent firearm related deaths may drop to some degree but people who are in opposition of these laws need to make an attempt at being open minded enough to grasp that it’s going to happen anyway anywhere by any fuckwit with no common sense, maybe some pent up frustrations and a loaded gun. Doesn’t matter if laws are passes stating he can own a gun or not he’ll find one. Simply put guns don’t kill people, people kill people the gun is simply a tool used to do the killing. Centuries before the idea of a gun had been conceived the human race has been killing one another. We are a vicious animal capable of earth shaking devastation. But I can still walk outside my front door everyday and see sticks and rocks laying around.. But that’s just my 2cents on the matter.

    10. Why would you compare Japan to America? Japanese and American culture and traditions are far different. Japanese don’t even think about littering on their own streets let alone hurt another Japanese person. When Australia and the UK banned guns murders,rapes,assaults and other violent crimes actually shot up.(No pun intended), think of guns like drugs. Most drugs (with the exception of most pharmaceutical pills and “medicines”.) are illegal in the USA. But yet somehow people are still getting them? Look at places like California, it has some of the most restrictive guns in the country and yet its still having trouble with gangs and criminals? If you outlaw guns than outlaws will have guns. If you ban guns in America you might as well be starting the 2nd Civil war. Also James Holmes apparently didn’t give 2 flying fucks about a sign that said no guns on the premise. He’s not gonna care about a gun violation if he plans on killing multiple people.

    11. I am a gun owner, I actually own several firearms and high powered rifles. I ran the Firearms Department. @ a Outdoor store for a few years. I enjoy recreational sport shooting and doing 3 gun matches. I also enjoy building and modifying AR platforms. It is kind of like guys or girls that are into cars. Yes there is a HUGE amount of responsibility that comes with owning and operating a firearm. Sadly there are idiots out there that give gun owners a bad name and make us all look like nut cases. But at the same time the % of good law abiding gun owners is vastly higher than those of the nut cases. Also consider this, people have been shot by firearms since their invention. What has changed? Media coverage. The media shows people more now of what they would never see. Back in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s imagine if we had Facebook, Myspace, Twitter or any other social media website to talk about the killings back then. The media wants to eliminate firearms that much is obvious. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and view point on this subject and I am not trying to change anyones mind.

      As for this exact shooting in the theater….

      I do feel that if someone in the theater had been carrying a concealed firearm they could have AT LEAST engaged the shooter. Thus either buying more time for people to get to safety, Maybe even wounding or killing the gunman, but even with body armor being shot is more than enough to get someones attention. A leg or arm shot could have stopped the shooting, a headshot (lucky) would have ended everything. However nobody was carrying so we will never know and we could talk about “what if’s” all day long. All I know is that if I were in that theater and was in anyway able to engage the shooter even if it ment putting myself in danger I would have. No I am not a hero and I dont feel people that carry concealed are heros. But they do carry a firearm with the understanding and knowledge that if they needed to they would be able to “turn the tide” or at least assume the responsibility to take a stand.

      I see people saying “It was against the law to carry a firearm in the theater.” I understand that point but also present you with the fact that if someone is carrying a gun the right way which is concealed not open you wouldnt ever know. They arent flashing it around or talking about it. Chances are you see people everyday that are carrying if you are in a state that allows carry permits. The fact that someone could have broken the law by concealing a firearm in the theater would not even be an after thought if that person was able to stop the shooter. A perfect example of that was last December an armed robber ran into a Kroger (grocery) store here in Indianapolis, he took the armed security guard hostage and held several cashiers at gun point. One of the night managers of the Kroger location happened to be carrying a firearm which is against Krogers policy. The manager walked up behind the robber and shot him once in the back of the head. Killing him and ensuring that no innocent people we harmed. Nobody said anything about him carrying a firearm at his job when it was against the law, except ANTI gun groups. What if he didnt have a firearm? Say the robber shot 3 people. Then what? In this case he didnt get the chance to and in my opinion that is how it should be.

    12. that’s a false premise. it assumes both of those statistics are perfectly reliable. i’m sure the US one will be fairly reliable, but i just happen to know that in japan, it’s all about statistics. if the people don’t see crime going down – they blame the police. if they see crime go up – hell, something needs to be done! everybody panics, murder is on the rise… the police are there mainly to make the population FEEL safe, and they do this by publishing low crime rates. makes them look like they’re doing a fan-fucking-tastic job. but they aren’t. if they investigate a murder, if there isn’t really solid and obvious evidence – that they will more than likely catch the person who committed the crime – then they simply report it as an ‘accident’ or ‘suicide’. why do you think their suicide rates are so damn high? they’re not. lots of them are murders which just weren’t investigated, to make the police look good. sorry =]

      i’m not pro gun or anything – i just wanted to point that out.

    1. Buju (Eric?).

      I have to say that your argument was easily he most comprehensive and elaborate I have ever read.

      It made mine look like a bunch of clich?s and catchphrases glued together…

      Well done Sir!

  2. I’m going to make this short because I’ve got a load to deliver by Friday and over 1800 miles to go (ya, right, like I’m really going to make it by Friday)

    To Mark: The only reason why I don’t argue about this gun control thing is simple; Those that are in favor of strict gun control laws or outright ban are not going to be persuaded to change their views by those that are of the opposite mind set. My stance on the subject is simple, I’m in favor of gun rights but I’m not going to try to change your mind on this controversial subject because your mind is already set. You, Mark are against guns and will always and forever be against guns.

    Call me a total fucking cop out if you want but I’m not one that likes the idea of feeling like I’m arguing with a brick wall(s). All the points for or against have already been spoken. What more could I possibly add? All anyone needs to know is that I’m for gun rights even though I don’t personally own one myself. Nuf’ said, gotta go.

  3. Thank you Mark, for giving those with an opposing view point a chance to voice their opinions! I enjoyed reading the articles, thank you to Buju, zerOsgnl, Trooper72, fOe, redazzbaboon and jTZAR for sending in your informative articles and for the time, thought and work that went into them!

  4. A long way down the road I agree with Boatman on his view, that all points have been made and many minds have been spoken, and nor am I going to repeat mine.

    However I do like to become more enlightened and I sincerely try not to be too narrow-minded about new knowledge and personal views. Therefore I would like to ask some pro gunners a few questions:

    1. Claim: The US has the highest murder rate of the western countries we normally compare ourselves to. What is the explanation?

    2. Claim: The US has never tried to apply strict gun laws and strict gun control like in Europe, where only the military and police are allowed to carry fire arms. Would it harm to try something different instead of debating to death? Could law makers do this?

    3. If liberal gun laws and the vast amount of illegal and legal firearms are not the source of problem, do you have any suggestions on what might be?

    NB! Please don’t be mean to me. I will read all your replies closely and I want to become smarter on your inner workings and thoughts.

    1. 1) proximity. In other words, poorer urban areas with opposing gangs set block to block of eachother, therefore dealers fight for simple corners to deal on. It’s a huge problem. That’s the majority of gun crime, not all of it.

      2) it will never happen. We have always been allowed to protect ourselves and assets. We will not give they up.

      3) people. We don’t get along with everyone, not everyone is clear thinking. It is a volatile mixture

  5. Very logical SOB’s
    I was going to submit an essay but I kept erasing/re-arranging it, Either way it was no match to those shown on this post.

    That obey picture makes me miss my They Live avatar..good times.
    Once again, Bravo, folks

  6. Bravo Buju, SunWorshipper, jTZAR, RedazzBaboon, FOe and Zer0Signal!

    Your well put together arguments certainly set the case for the ‘Pro-Guns’ lobby.

    And have evened the playing field for us…

    My own argument is relatively short and simplistic in comparison… I find these sorts of arguments easier to read. And their ‘soundbites’ easier to remember.


    Can you put up a poll to test the waters? Who is pro-Guns and who is anti-Guns?

    It should be interesting to see…

        1. Fleshy…

          I don’t think Europeans are wankers. I am a European myself. Although the French are pretty colossal pricks.

          I am what I like to call a ‘Balanced’ pro-Gunner…

          Do I think people should be allowed unfettered access to Assault weapons?

          Certainly not.

          Do I think people should be allowed to carry a handgun on the streets?

          Certainly not.

          Do I think people should have the right to defend their Homes and Property against people who would harm them?

          Hell Yes!

          No. I think that it is around 50/50. With maybe a slight edge on the pro-gunners.

          1. I carry in my vehicle.
            No shit. I drive around with my pistol holstered between passenger seat and e-brake, ready to be drawn, 1 in the chamber safety on.

            I also live in an area it very may one day be needed.

            Thank god I’m in a nicer Part of town now. My first place was straightfucking hood lol…. People I the street all night drinking up and down the block, at least one round a night. That shit was….. Fun?

            Considering a legit concealcarry considering what fuck hell in a handbag my town is with criminals

          2. The French have never won a war and I hate their pointy moustaches and weak retarded accents.

            Thank you for clarifying your views on the gun matter, sir Trooper ๐Ÿ™‚

          3. Interesting point Buju.

            I would be happy for a man to carry and use a weapon inside his vehicle…

            But as you said Eric. It is easy for me to say that people shouldn’t carry handguns on the streets… When I live in a good area.

            If I was living in West Belfast however. Or on the Fountain/ Bogside estate in Derry… I wouldn’t leave the house without a weapon.

          4. While it is certainly different there.

            Luckily I live in a nicer area now.

            Unfortunately, crime and violence isn’t confined to the hoods here. Any area can suddenly become not so nice

  7. Great posts, all of them. I’m from the UK and shudder at the hubris of some of the pro-gun points made. I wonder what would happen if a mass shooting happened in the US every week? Say, 20 people every week, women, children, the lot. Every week. How long would it be before any actual change would happen? 6 months? A year? Never? How many innocent people need to die before the people who are scared of the ‘what if…’ realise that it’s time to live in a civilised society like the rest of us?

    1. Exactly what Trooper said.

      Also, in this particular case, what if is not because it could happen, it is because it does happen. all the time.

      The what if, in this particular case is WHAT IF IT WAS ON YOUR WATCH. It can my friend.

      1. “How many innocent people need to die before the people who are scared of the ?what if?? realise that it?s time to live in a civilised society like the rest of us?”

        Is that a jab, or an observation with no backing? You clearly did not understand a word of any argument made, nor do you understand a citizen of the USA. Pro Guns or Anti-Guns.

        on a rather, heating side note.

  8. Not quite on topic, but very relevant somehow…..

    I work in a hotel, frog desk to be exact…. Yes Please shoot me……

    I totally have a Da Silva checking in today….. Holy shit I might meet a living Da Silva!!!

  9. The comments which relate to the ” if somebody had a gun they could have stopped him ” Either by making him re think his chosen actions before he went ahead with them ( completely ridiculous, he went prepared in full body armour armed to the teeth to suggest it would have made him re think makes you a fuckpot. )
    Or they could have returned fire, well they could have but again this is a man who clearly planned this with scary precision, booby trapped his residence, armour ammo, more than one gun and the time he choose to go, amongst many other things which we do not now about.
    In other words, I don?t believe he gave a shit if by chance somebody had a freaking gun to return fire, he choose well his destination, people late at night enjoying themselves with friends/family or alone. If somebody did return fire, it may have saved on or two who knows, but it would NOT I repeat would NOT have made the events avoidable.
    The gun controls law apply and don?t apply to this case or similar cases in my opinion, I mean did he plan this all out first, and then go about getting everything he needed so he was intent on doing this regardless, or did he think ah before I plan I need to get me some guns and ammo, high grade armour, fucking explosives not to mention rigging it all up. If it was the first then gun controls laws are irrelevant because he was intent on doing this so he would have got a gun somehow, if its the later then gun control laws are relevant because perhaps when he realised he couldn?t get these things he would have stopped.
    I cannot be the judge on what his actual thoughts were, if I was to offer my own choice, it would be this crazy fuckpot was doing this regardless, which fucking person rigs his apartment up ( how teh fuck did he know how to do all this? )
    Why did he do it? Maybe he wanted fame, maybe he was pissed off at the world, maybe somebody brainwashed him to do it, all maybes and I doubt if we will ever know why, cause his actions were so fucking cowardly and retarded how can we expect a clear precise explanation?
    Do fatal gun shootings by criminals outweigh the death toll compared to crazy fuckpots?
    Well I would think the number of innocent people killed by fuckpots outweigh those committed by criminals on innocents.
    Crazy fuckpots gunna do this I think regardless of gun laws, yea it may put a few off, but say the laws are changed and then it still happens what then? Maybe it prevented a few but we would never know, unless some wannabe fuckpot said hey I was going to shoot up my local burger king but I couldn?t get a gun and my local pimp said no way brother I cant do my job making money selling illegal shit cause you could be a fuckpot.

    Lastly I live in the UK so obviously not really affected by this, I am not for or against, im sitting on the fence ( yes I have splinters up my arse )
    But I do now one thing for sure, if I could carry a gun more freely than I currently could, I would keep one at home, and if I needed to use it I would, so perhaps that means by me not been as freely allowed to keep, have a gun its saving a life, however I have numerous things that I keep for this protection, so somebody gunna die if they try it either way.

    That?s my thoughts on all of this, not really to many facts or supporting evidence, but my opinion which I like better, cause facts and statistics can be distorted especially when these are made by our governments.

    1. Actually, massacres like this by “fuckpots” don’t even hold a candle to the amount of criminal related murder, with guns….. Anywhere.

      It may seem that way because he killed some countries yearly average in 3 minutes, but just for example…..
      In Albuquerque New Mexico the police shoot and kill an average of 3 people a week because they, HAVE A GUN and either fired on police, or just killed someone and will, or both….. That excludes gang and drug murders every week, it has to be close to double digits sometimes, A WEEK
      Unless I misunderstood you.

      1. Sorry, unless I misunderstood your meaning*

        As I said higher up, body does not mean it doesn’t hurt. It hurts, big time… He would have fled, or at least flinched and turned his focus…..guaranteed….. A .22 would have hurt…… Like a MotherFucker

      2. I think you did, my point was that shootings that involve innocent people, which are committed by “non” criminals will outweight the shootings of innocent people committed by criminals IE non fuckpot

        1. I will have to partially agree with you. That is true.

          However, I have seen several people killed or wounded as collateral. Not personally, but I know of people killed to get to a brother, sister, etc. Not pretty.

  10. Seriously?!
    Someone tried to plagiarize someone else’s work?
    Nothing pisses me off more than someone taking credit for someone else’s work.
    Then again, why should I be surprised – the internet brings out the stupid.

    1. Interested to know who that was, or just a pre emptive strike against those who might.

      I actually quoted Nicole in the article itself, not sure I credited her for that. Sorry!

      1. @Buju- Me? What did you quote, because I don’t remember, I read every article word for word.

        Oh and I don’t mind at all. I am not suppose to be responding, but I had to ask. ๐Ÿ˜€

          1. @Buju- Ferrari? What? Hint? @.0

            I think I caught it.

            If I respond, well I don’t guess it matters now. I made a comment up above^ and I feel like I am going against what I said. I cannot get into the gun topic, I get over heated and comment irrationally.

          2. Ah, well it was something along the lines of “guns should have been illegal from the start, we would never miss what we never had”

          1. Bobbi (the lead singer) went on to bigger things after this film, working with people like John Cassavetes and Pee Wee Herman.
            He’s in LA and does set design now.

            Jimbat (bass player) moved to Japan many years ago – he still gets recognized there from this film.

            John (with the Union Jack guitar) spends his time between here (Victoria) and his home in Costa Rica.

            And then there’s me……

          2. You cheeky one Tom…
            I was just walking out the door when I got your “Ups & Downs” question.

            Don’t think I didn’t catch the “don’t forget the ‘h'” comment either.

            As you said in your first comment to me…
            “You shall pay for that”.
            ๐Ÿ™‚ Mwah!

          3. Mwahahaha!

            Do anything to stick something rude and disgusting in there…

            Interesting bout ya Mates!

            Nah… Dont have regrets. That shit will drive you mad.

  11. Wow! This gun control thing has drawn a ton of commentary. BG has a LOT of thoughtful people on it. It’s way more than just blood and guts now.

    Anyway, just a quick note on the business about guys throwing themselves on top of their girlfriends to take the bullet for them: according to the mainstream media I’ve seen, there were THREE guys who supposedly did that, not one. Is is true? No idea, of course, but let’s not forget: this society places a HUGE value on pointless self-sacrifice. That’s what the so-called “Medal of Honor” is all about, you know. People actually do regularly sacrifice themselves for other people, even when it makes a lot more sense to do something else. Example: how many times have you read or heard about soldiers throwing themselves on grenades? The government LOVES that kind of thing. It’s celebrated and made a big deal of, even though it would make a lot more sense to just try to throw the damn thing far away. So, yeah, I do think there are a lot of idiots (especially young brainwashed guys) who might do things like that in the movie theater, even when the sensible thing is to simply run the fuck away like everybody else.

    I could go on about this and the evolutionary/genetic roots of self-sacrifice and its perversion by our rulers and all that, but I’m going to go stir my curry lentil instead. Have a good gory day!

    1. Haha Gem…

      I am a Brit… With surprisingly moderate views on this’n.

      It is well established that when you have two groups with extremely strong views… Nobody wins… A moderate can maybe compromise. But that is it…

      As for the Bible… If one topic turns me into a raving, homicidal maniac. It is people arguing Religion… And nationhood… But to a lesser extent.

  12. What’s with the bull about the father saying his son dove in front of a bullet for his girlfriend? You k ow them personally? Pr you’ve just never been in that kind of love? News flash….some people Actually do love that much. Don’t cast your cynicism on them. That would contradict your stance on reporting the truth, no?

    1. god.. as cruel as it sounds, I honestly believe the son did not do anything heroic.
      People tend to exaggerate reality in order to get more grief out of others, I’m not saying the kid didn’t do it, He probably did but in many instances this would be unlikely in the real world.
      However mark did express his mind in a rather.. “edgy” way, But hey, It’s mark, Isn’t that why we love him?

  13. I know I do not post here often. Even though I spend an hour a day here, usually I forget my password and other times I rather not post because I disagree with some individuals’ opinions on Jews and American servicemen.

    I will post now because firearms are a topic I am very familiar with. I am a 5th generation warrior. From 1850 until 1979, family served in the Nicaraguan military. From 1979, my family has served in the US military. Even I have signed up for OCS. From the lowliest sergeant all the way to 4 star generals have been part of my famliy. The only man in my family that has not signed up for duty is an uncle of mine who is crazy-even though he was a guerilla at one point in Nicaragua. I mention all this to prove I am not talking out of my ass. Also, I am a university trained historian and an international law student. I know my gun and law shit.

    What I have not read in any argument here, is the role American peoples’ countries of origin have in a person when it comes to buying an arm. We have Mexican, Polish, Italian, Spanish,Haitian, Irish, German, Scottish-Americans. As a historian, I am trained to recognize patterns.

    What I see is a pattern that indicates the following: A lot of Americans’ family history includes escaping from totalitarian dictatorships (with gun control), where they were not allowed to flourish. Escaping from these places means freedom- freedom that they know is guaranteed by having a gun. It’s freedom from danger, freedom from criminals, freedom to protect your property, freedom from hunger (by hunting).

    Unfortunately, apart from having a long martial history, I happen to live in a shitty neighborhood. It happens to be the same neighborhood where this guy, TREVON MARTIN, lived with his mom. Every day I saw Trevon walk past my front door. I am not racist (How can I be? I am a Jewish Nicaraguan American with a black Hispanic Irish Native American fiancee.)but this guy looked really suspicious. What I have to contend here is random robberies that end up with dead people, turf warfare, etc. It’s no fun throwing yourself on the floor crawling with your head down because there is gunfire outside. I mean AKs (real ones!), AR15s, Garands, FALs, going off every which way. There are 5 unsolved robberies with casualties in my neighborhood. Yeah, let’s not forget the crazies- We had a dude commit suicide by cop at a Ford dealership across the street and I had to save a distressed individual from committing suicide by car about a week ago. Tough shit.

    Remember, my family is from a country where guns are respected. We respect arms due to the reasons above. Nicaragua has expelled the Americans twice, the British once, and has fought 2 dictatorships. We have also defeated the combined armies of El Salvador and Honduras (read on the Battle of Namasigue- we killed 5000 enemy in the space of 2 hours with a loss 200 of our own. Then marched our army to each country’s capital within one month. It was the largest battle in mankind’s history until WW1 started.) Why? because of gun culture. Nicaragua have stood by the old Roman saying: If you want peace, be ready for war. Even grandmas know how to shoot.

    So i suspect that it is the same with many Americans- they come from countries where gun culture is respected and integrated with the culture of the country itself. So even though the regimes they have escaped from have instituted gun control (thereby eliminating a threat to themselves as well as removing a sacred part of the peoples’ culture= resentment) these people still hold guns dear to their hearts. This of course, not forgetting that non-immigrant Americans have the same traditions when it comes to guns. Guns is why I live in the States. An armed population can remove a bad government ( That is how my family ended up here).

    So I have no option but to get one. Too much crime in my “hood”. My mom does not allow firearms here (even thought that is changing). So I have chosen to arm myself with an air rifle- a .22 cal air rifle. Powerful one too…pellet travels at 1200 fps=handgun velocity. I know I only have one shot so it has to be aimed at the neck of the intruder or the heart region. A .22 is as lethal as anything else. Looking at hospital statistics show that most gsw deaths result from .22s!

    So I clean my rifle every week. It sleeps next to me at night. I kiss it before i go to bed. But most importantly, I pray to God that I never have to fire it in anger (That is military term for “in defense” for you non-military types lol).

    Does that make me a gun nut. No, not really.

    By the way Tulio, it is nice to meet another person with my name once in a while!

    1. By the way, I would also like to leave clear that although I signed up for US ARMY OCS (and got accepted) , I found out I am diabetic- It sucks but I dont want people to think I served.

    2. You make several interesting points…

      Although I suspect that 99% of what you just wrote down to be total BULLSHIT.

      Is their anything you HAVEN’T done? Asides from being a lawyer, a soldier and having defeated the British single handedly at the Battle of Bollocks in 1328?

      1. Dont be insulting man. Gee, Didn’t you read the part where I wrote that I got sick and thus i could not serve? And i still have two years to go before I graduate law school.
        Not funny dude.

        1. I reserve the right to call “BULLSHIT” on anything I deem to be BULLSHIT!

          It interests me that as a newbie you storm onto the boards with practically an autobiography already written out…

          I have never seen that before.

          Either way. I will never find out whether you are for real or not…

          But my gut tells me you aren’t… And I trust my gut.

          1. That’s ok. I don’t really care. Like I said. I rather be honest. Because this is a forum where people seem to be honest.

        1. @Gilby82, I don’t know if what you tell us about yourself is true or not (this is the internet) but, I personally thought you brought up a very interesting point about us American’s comming from diverse backgrounds!

          1. I can totally dig that! I know that since it is the internet, anyone can write anything. But then again, who would be so crazy so as to admit their family served under the regime of Somoza? That is why my family came to the States-they were ousted. USA gave Somoza and his cronies (eg. my fam) political Asylum.

            Somoza’s National Guard could very well be the most corrupt political gang doubling as an army ever conceived? But it’s the truth. Might as well admit to it.
            The truth always comes out. So I need not lie.

  14. Just been noticing the whole “well if someone had a carry” vs. “but he had body armor!” I just kind of want to stop hearing this argument.

    first off, its just ifs and buts. But for those saying it would have made no difference or “he had body armor” I just want to make something clear, I left out of the article because i didnt want to involve the massacre.

    Body armor. Is designed to stop bullets. It is not steel, it is Kevlar, and it flexes.

    Best case scenario, someone has a Colt 1911 which shoots a .45 ACP and is a popular model. Lets say they get a good shot and drill him in the head…. James Holmes would have been knocked out, COLD. If you want to dispute that, your so insanely misinformed or delusional its not even funny.

    Less than best? he takes it in the chest. He would have hit the ground, gasping for air. wind knocked clean out of him….. worse case still? 9mm? headshot? out cold. chest shot. wind gone. Worse? a .32 or .22 “Im being shot” *flee*

          1. Buju is right about the whole getting hit “even with armor is still quite painful and shocking” idea. regardless, I would have aimed at his feet. A real Achilles tendon situation . His feet were not armored.

          2. remember the LA shootout of ‘ 97? That is how the LAPD got the last bank robber…they shot him in the feer and legs. He died from “exsanguination”.

    1. I didn’t submit an essay thingy.
      It wouldn’t matter because I have a feeling that 80% will be about my penis and how it can blend into backgrounds.
      The nude girl can do better, I prefer the classic blonde mature one with the red bead-necklace

      1. 80 percent of what i wrote on ‘gun mania’ threads mysteriously dissapears, so i’ll better save my opinions for my elite academical peers and stick to tracking the reptilian conspirancy, BG female members tits, Trooper’s adventures trying to make friends on Lincoln Road and so on. ๐Ÿ˜€

        1. It was already super gay when I went to Disney in 1996 or 1997. In fact, at that time, the gay trend had not arrived in full force to BR, so I remember being flabbergasted watching couples of MUSCLE-FITNESS GAYS walking holding each other hands with most of them wearing tight light jeans and white tshirts or wifebeaters like it was some kind of uniform. I also remember well an old guy dressed in a cowboy outfit w/ texan boots walking with his wife that looked at the queers like he was going to pull a magnum 44 and start a massacre….america fuck yeah

  15. Actually, I read that there are 4 guys who supposedly died by taking a bullet for their girlfriend. However, one of 4 girlfriends said they ducked behind the seats, her boyfriend covered her and then he was shot. I think most people would probably huddle together if they were in that situation, family or friends, no?

    I also saw on TV how a boy, his girlfriend, his sister and their friend went to the theater and when the shooting began he took his girlfriends hand and ran out the exit leaving his sister behind.. they all made it out ok, but wow… pussy > family.

    I think the girlfriend survivors want to believe their boyfriend protected and saved them that day, even if they’re not 100% sure.. All girls want to believe that their man would do that for them in any situation.. I know I would.

      1. @Spanks Aw thank you babe! ๐Ÿ™‚ message me!

        @baked – Yes it really is sad. Interesting, I didn’t realize that. But aren’t there always those strange coincidences/theories.. when there is a tragedy on this level happens.

    1. Which ever way they died, It’s still saddening.
      Please be aware these are all symbolical rituals by the reptilians to celebrate occasions,.
      Anders brevik born on 13th, Holmes born on 13th, Both massacres occurred in july, The ancient pagan month of celebratory beginnings.

  16. “…his son dove to shield his girlfriend and took a mortal shot from James E. Holmes.

    I laughed my mother fucking ass off when I heard that.”

    I really thought better of you.

    I lost a close friend in the shooting, and he really did throw his girlfriend to the ground and took the bullet(s) for her. And y’know what? That doesn’t surprise me with the kind of guy he was. He’d readily give his life to save someone else. Not for fame, not for glory. If you knew him, you’d know.

    I wanted to smash my laptop screen in when I read your remark. The good in this world are outnumbered by the assholes who fake kindness, I know that. But y’know what? There are still genuinely good people in this world, and, quite frankly, you have no fucking right to assume every damn human is just as much of an immoral asshole as the next.

    Sorry, Mark. I thought you were better than that.

  17. PARDON ME – But you said :
    “Best Gore is NOT Plagiarism Central”
    And then said :
    “Copy pasting someone else?s words and sending them to me will not get you published. If you can?t put your thoughts into your own words, you won?t get a feature. Not only is it wrong to steal someone else?s writing, it also makes you look like a tool. Don?t do it.”

    Yet MOST of the material on Best Gore is taken from other sites.
    Is this the pot calling the kettle black ?

    1. Graugeist I think what Mark is trying to say is that the words have to be original, and that it’s ok to give opinions; after all that’s what the majority of SOB’s do, but it’s not ok to quote someone else and use it as your own. I agree that a lot of the stuff on BG is taken from elsewhere, but it’s the pictures/video that are taken and practically all of them have made the internet/media rounds so hardly Plagiarism.

      When Mark does quote someone or use their words in a round about way, he always lets us know at the start of his post that this is what he is going to do. I wonder if anyone who posted essays did the same???

          1. @Buju Ditto ๐Ÿ™‚

            Hey I never got to ask you the question about the military ๐Ÿ™

            You got an email or chat room name hanging round anywhere?

          2. @Buju I asked if you have an email address or instant message address? Blimey you must have either been tired or drunk when you read my message, i’m betting on drunk he he ๐Ÿ™‚

    2. Photos and videos are published on the website pursuant to Fair Use law which allows reproduction of material for criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, research, etc. Furthermore, as stated in the website’s Disclaimer, most images are widely available throughout the internet and are believed to be in a public domain. DMCA filing instructions are included should a copyright holder wish not to have their images published on the website.

      Plagiarism on the other hand is wrongful appropriation of another author’s language and the representation of them as one’s own original work. I have never, not once stolen anyone’s writing and published it on here in pretense that it’s me who is able to express himself that way. Had I done that, then I would be a pot calling cattle black. Contrary, Best Gore is one of the most plagiarized websites on the internet. My original text is regularly stolen by other websites without credit given to me as the author of the text.

    3. far as i remember, he credits whomever sent him the content, or directed him to it at the very least.

      Plagiarism – “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and representation of them as one’s own ‘original’ work”

  18. I must say this. To all of you that think that you can bring the US goverment using a gun, YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
    1. You are terrible revolutioners since you will much sooner kill eachother than form an united front against something, reason for this is: you worship money, and dont know how to work without them. Second reason. you are terribly gullible and will be misused if you try something like that.
    2. The US goverment have already established THE strongest propaganda machine that existed in the history of humanity, a single gunshot in a rally will get all of the protesters killed, AND the rest of you will celebrate it because they were “communists” or “terrorists” or “hippies” or “[insert new word here]”. Want an example? Tell me your opinion of Occupy Wall Street movement. Do you know even for what they stand(or stood, im not following the whole thing) for?
    3. Using a gun will mean killing an american, it might even be your child. Do you want that to happen for a political reason?

  19. If I may add, I totally don’t remember saying what I was quoted on haha. I think there may be a little confusion, because while I did post. I think someone else said what I was credited for. I am almost entirely certain killajamal’s comment and mine were mixed up somehow.

  20. 1. The whole debate is muddled up. No one is sure exactly what they are debating:
    ? protection of society ?
    ? preventing massacres ?
    ? the right to bear arms ?
    ? gun crime ?
    ? high gun crime in America ?
    … but they debate it anyway. Which basically guarantees that there will be no winners, no losers, no resolution of any of the above, just one dirty great big debate.

    2. With demented “logic” such as:
    “Why was James Eagan Holmes shooting? He was shooting because he had a gun. An alternative question could be: Why did Aurora movie theater goers died? because he had a gun.”
    no sane argument could be had. That is as idiotic as “why did the Thai woman pedestrian die ?” … “because the driver had a car”. Why did millions of unarmed civilians die ? … because America had millions of bombs. Not a reasonable argument, at least not for adults who finished high school.

    3. Mark, it is your website, and you can run it the way you want. From previous posts, you clearly have a fixed idea about the outcome you want from this debate. It is typically Canadian (I lived there for 12 years), to look down your nose at American gun crime statistics, and think yourself better than them, that Canadians have The Answer. They don’t. It is a different country, with the Right to Bear Arms enshrined. America is the zionists numba wun fave whore, and quite a different one from Canada. Americans love going to war for the jews almost as much as the jews love sending Americans to war. The manipulations the zionists perpetrate on America are quite different to that which they perpetrate on Canada. Point being, there is a decided bias. Probably quite unconscious.

    4. It is part of the well documented zionist agenda, to disarm Americans, in order to enslave them more completely. The United Nations of Rothschild, being their vehicle, have presented their small arms “treaty”. If you accept that, you are accepting zionist enslavement. If the debate does not include this issue, it would be missing the most important part of the problem. It is a waste of time to argue the flesh and the skin, while avoiding the skeleton altogether. That is typical UNR protocol and programming.

    For these reasons, I will refrain from participating in the debate. Apart from debates, your site is excellent.

  21. Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

    SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith’s store.

    Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith’s employee Dorothy Espinoza says, “He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people.”

    here is the link to the complete article

  22. To my fellow Americans, Instead of endless debating and arguing on the Internet, let us all post huge signs of our views on firearms outside of our homes. Will it be “Well armed household”? or “Gun free household”? Then we will see who has had the most grief.

  23. I cant disagree about if somebody shot it would have stopped him, but lets not forget one important thing,
    He went in, with a gas mask, and threw some unknown kind of grenade, so i think its fair to say, that kind of rules of the one or two possible people who could have had or did have a gun to return fire.

    1. That is right. He stopped because his toy gun jammed. He did not resist arrest, he did not shoot himself. The guy is a coward, shooting unarmed folks. if anyone retaliated, he would have stopped; if anyone shot back, he would have run like hell for the door.

      There are a thousand post on the internet from instant experts saying a citizen with a concealed carry licence would not have made a difference, because he was wearing armour. They do not appreciate the psychological element, the guy is a coward.

      The guy with the CCL would have to be in the first ten rows (while the shooter was on the platform) or come up beside or behind him (when he was walking up the aisle).

      He may be a victim of MK Ultra, etc, but that is a separate story.

  24. I really think this is bullshit aswell, story the F**k up lol but i will say that if i was their with my daughter, i would most deffinatly use my own body to make sure she came out unskaved…..when it comes to something like that the love for my child would over power my slight fear to die. Maybe its just me but i think theirs thousands of parents that would do the same.


  25. having gun control or whatever isn’t going to help solve the problem. Since Americans by nature are violent
    and cruel, they will always kill for sick twisted pleasure… they just can’t live peacefully. They always get
    orgasm by bombing other countries, backstabbing each other, and overinflating their ego to compensate for their
    small penis.

  26. as much as I acknowledge what the Japanese did during world war II (americans did evil too), the reason why
    Japan isn’t as bad as USA is because Japan doesn’t have inbred white trash with IQ of 10, niggers, spics, muslim terrorists
    … in other words, Japan is only 99 percent Japanese while America is on its way to losing so many white crackerjack
    motherfuckers. Don’t get me wrong, Japan still has immigrant turds from pakistan and other places but America allows and
    encourages the bullshit of multiculturalism.

    Plus sex crime in Japan is high, they only report the “reported” crimes, in Japan to save face, sometimes even if they get robbbed or raped, they don’t report it.

  27. Guns are terrible inventions and combine that with an over crowded multicultural population in which a large quantity is under the poverty line you’re going to get somebad juju coming your way. If guns were still legal in uk the bodies would have been piling up long ago as Brits have more of a tendency to pent up emotions then release them in one big rage, well in my experiences with angry kinsmen.

  28. Wait a minute….
    Pro-gun debate? Does that even constitute a debate? I always understood a “debate” as a conversation with at least two opposing parties who try to substantiate their claims with reasoning. “Pro Gun Debate” sounds like a stroke-fest, for the sole purpose of reminding people that their opinion is already correct.

  29. You cannot ban guns so good luck trying. Psychopaths want to kill random people because they never had the proper connection with nature and interactions with other human beings that allowed them to grow and develop and empathize with other creatures. Many people grow up in a city and don’t even have access to the wilderness, ponds, lakes, forests, etc. I’ll bet many of these psychopaths never had dogs growing up and weren’t brought up the way they should have.

    Traditional american norms are being thrown out the window, social decay and immoral behaviors are growing rapidly, instant gratifications and entitlement rather than hard work, all these things contribute to mass murder. Mass murder can be with toxic gas, cars, bombs, knives, it really doesn’t matter.

    People were not guaranteed safety in the united states. We were guaranteed liberty and freedom. Freedom from government oppression. You cannot and will not take our firearms, and if you try, you’ll see states such as texas break off as it’s own country, and that’s where I’ll be chilling with my fishing poll and 9mm.

    You cannot simply ban fucking guns, you must have forgotten about the 350 million guns out there, some 270 of which are unregistered. Good luck everyone, if you break into my home I will shoot you when I feel threatened, you will not tread on me, and when society fails and people are holding on for dear life, I’ll have the upper hand with my guns, and I could always take your food if need be.

    An unarmed person begging to take someone elses gun away simply doesn’t make sense nor is it possible.

  30. Less guns in circulation is irrelevant when the Mexican cartels are making their own at a rapid pace. I’ve purchased 4 guns in my lifetime. 2 recently. Each time I have had to wait 2-5 days while background checks were done before I could actually take it home. Sad thing is I could get one off the streets with very little effort and most likely have one in my hands within a couple hours. And cheaper too. Gun laws are in effect. We have background checks and gun purchasees are looked over with a fine tooth comb. Law abiding citizens. Unfortunately criminals do not obey laws. That right there is obvious. But what isn’t to some is criminals do not want to buy guns that could be traced back to them when used in a crime. With all that going on. I want to have the advantage over a criminal instead of the other way around. And as for being protected by law enforcement? No-one is going to care about my safety and my kids safety more than I do. So why would I want to depend on second rate protection over myself and my family? I’ve learned early on to be proactive and not be dependant on anyone but myself. I do think there should be mandatory live fire training courses. There is in some states. But 27 of them don’t require that. Considering it’s something that can kill a person. We have to treat it the same as someone acquiring a driver’s license. Behind the wheel of a car is basically like a 3,000+ lb speeding bullet. It’s pointless to have a firearm if you don’t know how to use it correctly. And half the time criminals themselves don’t know how to shoot straight. They see movies like boys in the hood where they’re shooting sideways and think it’s cool. When really. You won’t hit your intended target that way. Looks cool though. But that’s about it. And since alot of them don’t know how to shoot well. I have an advantage over them. Because I do know how to shoot well.

Leave a Reply