we floored it from 0 to autism in no time flat

dflame does sub 100 damage per minute

How can you tell? Have we ever attempted it before?

My day is better already for teng's inclusion in it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JUCfX1P1ik

Damn someone got upset

This isn't even a question

righteous bison

Bumping this

I guess I'm open to playing roamer again but would prefer pocket. Going to be messing around in cevo with Finland's Finest but still looking for an actual team to play with

ctf_aerospace is still aesthetically my favorite tf2 map

Considering 0 people in this thread have seriously endorsed a unilateral ban to firearms, what point are you trying to make?

I'm fairly certain mustard and I have been the most vocal proponents of gun control and neither of us have ever even conjectured (other than myself being sarcastic) that we should just ban guns forever instantly. If you want to own a hunting rifle because that's how you make your living, go ahead. However, you shouldn't pretend that limiting people to buying one gun a month, or mandatory psychological testing, or limiting how many fucking guns someone can own is seriously jeopardizing your way of life.

If you can really think of a solid argument for why duder needs 6 guns, I'd love to hear it.

Because it's been demonstrated that it is so much more difficult to kill 20+ people with a handgun.

Oh

They also wanted to secede because Obama was re-elected. How can you even read "millions of gun owners willing to lose their shit for the same amendment" and not see that as a problem? Millions of people NEED guns in America? For what, to defend themselves from the other millions with them I guess.

"Stuff is shit, deal with it" A+ logic.

Money happens to be quite a barrier for a lot of people that want to do things that require money so I'm not exactly sure how your argument holds up. I mean this is econ 101 that if price goes up, demand goes down. Will there be ways for people to attain guns illegally? Yes, but as Jim Jeffries pointed out yesterday, "The kid was autistic, I doubt he had many connections to the black market."

Once again someone makes an argument while completely ignorant of the circumstances and historical differences under which the 2nd amendment was ratified. How is either option "the best thing", even using language like that betrays bias or at the very least, unwillingness to consider alternatives. You've written off gun control working before ever even considering it.

Who gives a fuck about either big game states or millions of assmad gun owners? There are just as many millions of people that would be upset if their child was shot by "yet another" fucktard with a semi-automatic handgun. You don't have to abolish the 2nd amendment to make firearms less prevalent in society. Though considering what "arms" details nowadays, it might be better to rethink just how necessary it is for people to have a "right" to owning them. Before I even hear shit about, "considering changing the constitution" let's not forget that it had to be amended to abolish slavery.

Also, immediately labeling a law meant to keep excessive amounts of fire arms away from private armories is hardly "bullshit." If duder wants to get upset that the state tells him he can now only own one gun that is on him, I'm sure the rest of society would appreciate maybe dropping the gun homicide total below 11k for a change.

Wow. I guess we never should have studied medicine either since you're going to die anyway. Let's let private citizens own entire arsenals of automatic weaponry too, because hey, the people are the problem not the guns.

I think large parts of their dismissal have to do with things like "historical context", and "actually reading it."

Considering multiple people have already spelled out that while gun control could not with certainty have prevented this and that there needs to be something done about the availability of firearms, how about the other mass shootings this year? "Oh but if they want a gun they'll get one", see previous post.

This is America so the only opportunity we get to talk about gun control is after yet another lunatic goes wild on innocent bystanders. Considering I live in Chicago which has one of the highest number of gun homicides per year, the news doesn't tend to cover gun control ever and instead runs the usual, "4 men were shot dead today on the south side, but tonight's top story: Is Rahm Emanuel taking away teacher's rights?"

I think everyone already stated quite clearly that access to mental health services is also an issue, unfortunately people will actually argue against the gun control issue based on faulty, outdated reasoning.

What you and I call "gun control" are two entirely separate notions of gun control though. NRA members support the form of "strict gun control" that means that you can't buy assault rifles and you have to wait 3 days to buy a gun (which even this is debated against). I said previously that there are people that seriously think that limiting people to buying one gun a month is a serious restriction on their freedom. That's 12 guns a year. What in the fuck does anyone in suburban U.S.A. need 12 different fucking guns for? As clockwork already demonstrated, it's a lot easier to draw that line then you want it to be.

I'm just going to let that one sink in