Is Alex Jones "Crazy"?

phoenyx said:

Well said. Here's another story, not sure if it's been mentioned here yet:



Making gun ownership a crime would be criminal. I live in Canada; here, we can own guns, but we have to register all guns with the exception of long guns (the small arms type). We seem to be doing alright, although I don't think this is due solely to our gun laws; I think our social safety net may be more developed as well.

Click to expand...

In canada the gun registry was a failed experiment and has been repealed.

Otherwise, thanks, and I've watched that one...

BmanMcfly said:

In canada the gun registry was a failed experiment and has been repealed.

Otherwise, thanks, and I've watched that one...

Click to expand...

It isnt fully dead yet, There are lawsuits a flying. It was a billion dollar boondogle though

Quag said:

It isnt fully dead yet, There are lawsuits a flying. It was a billion dollar boondogle though

Click to expand...

My roommate bought a hunting rifle the other day and just had to show his FAC card, and no paperwork other than the bill of sale, so people are taking the chance to buy unregistered guns for the time bein at least.

Mustachio said:

Teenagers shouldn't have AR-15s, Then you've got criminals with an AR-15, which is the whole point. By allowing the production and sales of these weapons, they fall into the hands of the wrong people, even if they are purchased and owned by law abiding citizens who legally obtain them.

And further, I was saying - in what situation would a person need an AR-15 rather than a handgun? You've failed to present such a case and the one you cited only further illustrates the potential for dangerous outcomes present when an AR-15 is lying around.

Click to expand...

You seem to have a fear of AR-15 style rifles. Why? The majority of homicides are caused by handguns, which you seem fine with, while rifles account for less than 1% of homicides. So your fear seems irrational and unfounded and based on ignorance of the facts.

BmanMcfly said:

My roommate bought a hunting rifle the other day and just had to show his FAC card, and no paperwork other than the bill of sale, so people are taking the chance to buy unregistered guns for the time bein at least.

Click to expand...

Depends what happens with the lawsuits. They are provincial so It would depend where you are as to whether there is any chance it comes back (ie the provinces fighting to keep it win)

Alex Jones is one of the many real-life trolls we find everyday.

Crush Obama at every turn.

Quag said:

Depends what happens with the lawsuits. They are provincial so It would depend where you are as to whether there is any chance it comes back (ie the provinces fighting to keep it win)

Click to expand...

Ok, well, thanks for the info, I wasn't aware that it wasn't a done deal... At least for the meantime there is no registry.

Dammitboy! said:

You seem to have a fear of AR-15 style rifles. Why? The majority of homicides are caused by handguns, which you seem fine with, while rifles account for less than 1% of homicides. So your fear seems irrational and unfounded and based on ignorance of the facts.

Click to expand...

Well, if what you're saying is that there's no easy solution to the problem of gun violence in the United States, I'd agree with you. As we'll be seeing in the coming months, a comprehensive approach with reform in policies regarding mental health, gun laws, gun safety, and other areas will ultimately have to be considered if we want to curb gun violence. The hardest area to change will be in gang related violence, where many of the weapons are purchased illegally and the dynamics of the situation may be such that law enforcement is incapable of preventative intervention.

So we have to start with the obvious things, which are especially conspicuous in the case of mass shootings. We don't need AR-15s and these guns are capable of killing a lot of people in a very short quantity of time. It's not just shootings that have happened, it's shootings that could happen. If Holmes' clip hadn't jammed. If Lanza hadn't shot himself preemptively. We don't want to wait for a situation like that to happen.

When it comes to handguns, if somebody is killed with a handgun, at the end of the say we know that handguns are responsibly owned and used for self defense. But there's never been a case where an AR-15 was used by a civilian for personal defense when a handgun would have been just as, if not more, effective. It's just so obvious to many of us that it's stupid to sell these guns. Will it solve anything? It might not, but it might prevent something particularly repugnant and it's a good place for us to start.

Mustachio said:

Well, if what you're saying is that there's no easy solution to the problem of gun violence in the United States, I'd agree with you.

Click to expand...

No, there's a VIOLENCE problem, there's a drug problem, there's a gang problem, there's an education problem, there's an economic problem... The only gun problem is that government wants to limit / eliminate America's guns.

As we'll be seeing in the coming months, a comprehensive approach with reform in policies regarding mental health, gun laws, gun safety, and other areas will ultimately have to be considered if we want to curb gun violence.

Click to expand...

Here's a gun law that I would support: like a drivers license before you can buy a gun that you demonstrate a level of proficiency with guns... Not so stringent that only military could carry, but enough to show that you know how a gun works and standard safety.

The hardest area to change will be in gang related violence, where many of the weapons are purchased illegally and the dynamics of the situation may be such that law enforcement is incapable of preventative intervention.

Click to expand...

Ya, and until we eliminate crime, then I need a gun to protect myself against the criminals who will have guns regardless of laws.

So we have to start with the obvious things, which are especially conspicuous in the case of mass shootings. We don't need AR-15s and these guns are capable of killing a lot of people in a very short quantity of time. It's not just shootings that have happened, it's shootings that could happen. If Holmes' clip hadn't jammed. If Lanza hadn't shot himself preemptively. We don't want to wait for a situation like that to happen.

Click to expand...

All I hear here is "I'm scared please protect me"... Well, nobody can protect you (exception maybe if you have armed guards), so you must be able to protect yourself.

What if those people didn't target "gun free zones" and someone saw what was happening, lined them up and shoot them down??

When it comes to handguns, if somebody is killed with a handgun, at the end of the say we know that handguns are responsibly owned and used for self defense. But there's never been a case where an AR-15 was used by a civilian for personal defense when a handgun would have been just as, if not more, effective. It's just so obvious to many of us that it's stupid to sell these guns. Will it solve anything? It might not, but it might prevent something particularly repugnant and it's a good place for us to start.

Click to expand...

Impossible, because an ar-15 is far more accurate than a handgun ESPECIALLY in a self-defense circumstance where adrenaline is pumping... Also, the AR-15 has more stopping power.

You're now grasping because you don't understand guns in any way... Honestly, go to a shooting range and do the comparison for yourself.

So, would you have preferred, in the case of the 12 year old in the link earlier, that the criminals have had an ar-15 and the kid was limited to a pistol?? What purpose would that serve?

BmanMcfly said:

No, there's a VIOLENCE problem, there's a drug problem, there's a gang problem, there's an education problem, there's an economic problem... The only gun problem is that government wants to limit / eliminate America's guns.

Here's a gun law that I would support: like a drivers license before you can buy a gun that you demonstrate a level of proficiency with guns... Not so stringent that only military could carry, but enough to show that you know how a gun works and standard safety.

Ya, and until we eliminate crime, then I need a gun to protect myself against the criminals who will have guns regardless of laws.

All I hear here is "I'm scared please protect me"... Well, nobody can protect you (exception maybe if you have armed guards), so you must be able to protect yourself.

What if those people didn't target "gun free zones" and someone saw what was happening, lined them up and shoot them down??

Impossible, because an ar-15 is far more accurate than a handgun ESPECIALLY in a self-defense circumstance where adrenaline is pumping... Also, the AR-15 has more stopping power.

You're now grasping because you don't understand guns in any way... Honestly, go to a shooting range and do the comparison for yourself.

So, would you have preferred, in the case of the 12 year old in the link earlier, that the criminals have had an ar-15 and the kid was limited to a pistol?? What purpose would that serve?

Click to expand...

First, I really don't mind people having guns and I don't think any of Obama's "reforms" will do much of anything. I would prefer that people have, like you said, some kind of license ensuring that they have taken basic safety classes and don't have a history of hospitalizations for mental issues or felonies and that kind of thing. But I also have no problem with halting production of guns like the AR-15.

I have gone to a shooting range and used semi-automatic rifles. I think they're ridiculous and there's no reason they should be available. Criminals, like the ones mentioned in the case with the 15 year old kid, are not assassins nor were they going around killing people. The vast majority of robberies are committed by desperate people who do not heavily arm themselves. They are not there to kidnap children or kill entire families. They are there because they think nobody is in the house and they want to loot expensive things to sell so they can support their drug habit - or something similar. While I am not going to shed tears over the loss of life in that case, wiping them out with an AR-15 is unnecessary and I'd prefer that guns are used for protection in the very way you alluded to. You don't need 50 rounds to fend off a couple teenagers looking for a gold necklace to pawn.

You're right, we have a problem with violence in America and we have way more gun violence than other countries. It's not because of guns. There are other reasons and this debate will only touch the surface of that issue.

Mustachio said:

We don't need AR-15s and these guns are capable of killing a lot of people in a very short quantity of time. Will it solve anything? It might not, but it might prevent something particularly repugnant and it's a good place for us to start.

Click to expand...

How is it a "good place to start" with a firearm that is very rarely used to commit a crime? You make no sense at all and speak out of fear and ignorance. Hammers killed more people last year than AR-15's. Handguns are responsible for over 90% of murders and you want to start with a firearm used in less than 1% of homicides. Why?

How are AR-15's capable of killing more people in a short time than handguns? The Va Tech shooter killed more people in the same time frame with two handguns than the Sandy Hook shooter or the Batman shooter. Will banning AR-15's solve anything? No, not at all. How do we know that? It didn't do jack **** last time.

Last time I checked, you deciding what law abiding citizens "need" isn't a reason or a fact or logical or any part of law. It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs as defined by you.

Dammitboy! said:

How is it a "good place to start" with a firearm that is very rarely used to commit a crime? You make no sense at all and speak out of fear and ignorance. Hammers killed more people last year than AR-15's. Handguns are responsible for over 90% of murders and you want to start with a firearm used in less than 1% of homicides. Why?

How are AR-15's capable of killing more people in a short time than handguns? The Va Tech shooter killed more people in the same time frame with two handguns than the Sandy Hook shooter or the Batman shooter. Will banning AR-15's solve anything? No, not at all. How do we know that? It didn't do jack **** last time.

Last time I checked, you deciding what law abiding citizens "need" isn't a reason or a fact or logical or any part of law. It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs as defined by you.

Click to expand...

I don't think there are many people posting on this forum, on this subject matter who seem less emotional than I am about this whole thing. I don't know how a post saying that Obama's "reforms" will likely do nothing would earn such a sweeping condemnation from yourself, except that I think you're just pissed off and will gladly go off on anybody who says a word they disagree with.

I'm sorry, but AR-15s are stupid and people don't need them for defense and they certainly don't need them for hunting. If they can't a lot of people in a short amount of time, then it would be sensible to agree that they serve no purpose. And it's absolute tripe that the bill of rights prevents legislation banning assault rifles or semi-automatic rifles or landmines or whatever else congress and the executive branch deem fit. We have freedom of speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, because it is a stupid and dangerous thing to do. Manufacturing and selling AR-15s is a stupid and dangerous thing to do, so we shouldn't do it.

The statistics you cite don't change my mind. Terrorism kills fewer people per year, in the United States, than people drowning in bath tubs. Should we abolish the department of homeland security? Should we have gone after Bin Laden? Be consistent please.

EDIT: Also, the VA tech shooting (the main spree) lasted 11 minutes, the Aurora theater shooting had gone on for 90 seconds before police arrived, AND he suffered the malfunction. So he would have killed/injured people at well over 10 times the rate of the VA Tech shooting had he been successful, which is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about preventing.

Mustachio said:

I'm sorry, but AR-15s are stupid and people don't need them for defense and they certainly don't need them for hunting. Manufacturing and selling AR-15s is a stupid and dangerous thing to do, so we shouldn't do it.

Click to expand...

That's your argument? You don't want to throw in a "you stupid doodyhead"? No facts, no statistics, no relevant data, nothing to support your "logical" argument based on sound reason? lol

If Ar-15's are so incredibly dangerous and stupid, why do the police carry them in their patrol cars?

Dammitboy! said:

That's your argument? You don't want to throw in a "you stupid doodyhead"? No facts, no statistics, no relevant data, nothing to support your "logical" argument based on sound reason? lol

If Ar-15's are so incredibly dangerous and stupid, why do the police carry them in their patrol cars?

Click to expand...

my argument was actually the 95% of my previous message that you deleted and chose to ignore. you ask for statistics and relevant data but you also invent "facts" such as "the VA tech shooting and the aurora shooting lasted the same amount of time" (VA Tech was much, much longer) and the va tech shooting had more casualties (actually, fewer dead + injured than aurora, but who's counting?!). That was part of your argument for why AR-15s are no more deadly than handguns! Are you asking people for facts or a facts checker?

If Ar-15's are so incredibly dangerous and stupid, with no reasonable use, why do the police carry them in their patrol cars?

Mustachio said:

First, I really don't mind people having guns and I don't think any of Obama's "reforms" will do much of anything. I would prefer that people have, like you said, some kind of license ensuring that they have taken basic safety classes and don't have a history of hospitalizations for mental issues or felonies and that kind of thing. But I also have no problem with halting production of guns like the AR-15.

Click to expand...

No, not a psychological test, a proficiency test. Everything has a psychological designation at this point, so nobody would have a gun in that case.

Why the AR-15?? What scares you about it??

I have gone to a shooting range and used semi-automatic rifles. I think they're ridiculous and there's no reason they should be available. Criminals, like the ones mentioned in the case with the 15 year old kid, are not assassins nor were they going around killing people. The vast majority of robberies are committed by desperate people who do not heavily arm themselves. They are not there to kidnap children or kill entire families. They are there because they think nobody is in the house and they want to loot expensive things to sell so they can support their drug habit - or something similar. While I am not going to shed tears over the loss of life in that case, wiping them out with an AR-15 is unnecessary and I'd prefer that guns are used for protection in the very way you alluded to. You don't need 50 rounds to fend off a couple teenagers looking for a gold necklace to pawn.

Click to expand...

Ha, so we are supposed to have faith that the person breaking in is just desperate... Well, a desperate person is most likely to kill for wha they want and so is best to be properly armed.

If someone breaks into my house the assumption CANNOT BE that they are good people, the assumption is that these are criminals who are desperate, and need to be stopped.

Why are you so supportive of criminals??? (intentionally or incidentally)

You're right, we have a problem with violence in America and we have way more gun violence than other countries. It's not because of guns. There are other reasons and this debate will only touch the surface of that issue.

Click to expand...

There are more gangs, and it's majoritarian gangs killing gangs... The types of people that you want to be well armed if you must deal with them...

Plus, even in the ghettos if everyone was packing people might just think twice... But that desperation factor remains a wild card....

But, there are more violent crimes with blunt objects than guns, more stabbings than shootings, etc... A person is even more likely to suicide than to be a shooting victim...

The world is a dangerous place, and frankly you can either accept that you are a victim, or you can increase your odds by maintaining your capacity to defend yourself in any way you see fit.

Mustachio said:

I also have no problem with halting production of guns like the AR-15.

I have gone to a shooting range and used semi-automatic rifles. I think they're ridiculous and there's no reason they should be available. ...wiping them out with an AR-15 is unnecessary... You don't need 50 rounds to fend off a couple teenagers looking for a gold necklace to pawn.

Click to expand...

If AR-15's are ridiculous, with no reason for being available and unnecessary - why do the police carry them? If we don't need 50 rounds, why do the police carry 3 30 round magazines for their AR-15's?

Try to avoid any emotional responses and just stick to logic and reason for at least one post. Your abject fear is coloring your posts.

Alex makes sense on certain issues when he isn't on a screaming rant. I don't think he is "crazy" because I believe it is all part of an act. He goes over the edge on almost every issue....

Somethings makes a bit of sense, but most of it is nonsense.

Dammitboy! said:

If AR-15's are ridiculous, with no reason for being available and unnecessary - why do the police carry them? If we don't need 50 rounds, why do the police carry 3 30 round magazines for their AR-15's?

Try to avoid any emotional responses and just stick to logic and reason for at least one post. Your abject fear is coloring your posts.

Click to expand...

I know, it's funny... And the best part to me is I used to be the biggest anti-gun person out there. Then, I got taken out to the shooting range and realized how there's nothing to fear about the gun if you're being safe.

The fact is that this is why you wantto keep guns:

Alex Jones isn't crazy, he's just pissed off. Rightly so, I might add. Now I don't agree with him on all of his conspiracy theories, and he tends to exaggerate things, but he does some legitimate research and has made (not necessarily in this particular interview) a very good case against this criminal government.

Its not crazy or extremist to be furious about this traitor Obama and his criminal syndicate trying to disarm the American people. Could Alex Jones have handled himself better? Of course. Is he crazy? No, he puts forth real facts and has a righteous indignation at a time when the Constitution is absolutely under siege by "progressive" idiocy and statist tyrants. Although I disagree with him on many issues, I am still behind Alex Jones 100% on this and he has my full support.

BmanMcfly said:

Ha, so we are supposed to have faith that the person breaking in is just desperate... Well, a desperate person is most likely to kill for wha they want and so is best to be properly armed.

If someone breaks into my house the assumption CANNOT BE that they are good people, the assumption is that these are criminals who are desperate, and need to be stopped.

Why are you so supportive of criminals??? (intentionally or incidentally)

There are more gangs, and it's majoritarian gangs killing gangs... The types of people that you want to be well armed if you must deal with them...

Plus, even in the ghettos if everyone was packing people might just think twice... But that desperation factor remains a wild card....

But, there are more violent crimes with blunt objects than guns, more stabbings than shootings, etc... A person is even more likely to suicide than to be a shooting victim...

The world is a dangerous place, and frankly you can either accept that you are a victim, or you can increase your odds by maintaining your capacity to defend yourself in any way you see fit.

Click to expand...

I am intentionally opposed to criminals. Part of that means preventing criminals from having things like AR-15s. Now, to address two of your points simultaneously, you're right, it's not like the AR-15 is a gun above all other guns, or that halting its production will save millions of life. In my opinion, it's a common sense thing to do, because it's more dangerous than it needs to be - in the hands of a law abiding citizen or a murder-crazed maniac. This discussion (this particular one) takes up way too much of our time because people who are way too paranoid won't accept that banning the AR-15 from production and sales (for civilians) is a logical first step. I'm sorry to say this if it offends you, but you sound somewhere in between paranoid and delusional. You can't come up with a single case where a law abiding citizen needed an AR-15 for self defense when a handgun would have been just as good if not better, so why do you think you will be the first person to ever encounter such a situation? Are you wanted by a drug cartel or targeted by al-Qaeda? No? Then I think you'll be fine. Desperate people aren't armed with thousand dollar rifles and stockpiles of ammunition. If they were desperate, they would sell those things, not use them to rob you. Again, your thinking is paranoid, it's not realistic, and it doesn't make me sympathetic to the point you're making for a split second. This is why everybody should just move on from this argument because it's NOT the big picture - the big picture is that banning the AR-15 won't do much of anything, it's a move made because it's the obvious thing to do and it's a symbolic victory when we need a meaningful victory - which would mean reform to many different aspects of our society from mental health to the media.

Dammitboy! said:

If AR-15's are ridiculous, with no reason for being available and unnecessary - why do the police carry them? If we don't need 50 rounds, why do the police carry 3 30 round magazines for their AR-15's?

Try to avoid any emotional responses and just stick to logic and reason for at least one post. Your abject fear is coloring your posts.

Click to expand...

You're telling me what I should avoid? Let me tell you what you should avoid - responding to me, deleting my posts which refute everything you say, and copy-pasting the same failed point I've already refuted. Want me to do it again? The AR-15 isn't a gun you need, nor does any other law abiding citizen. The police may carry it, but that doesn't mean you need it. The police can also run through intersections. Does that mean it should be legal for every person? Does the fact that the United States has an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons mean that you need one?

This isn't a huge deal. It's one little common sense move in a sea of changes we need if we're going to do anything. We have a problem of gun violence. Way more people kill other people with guns in the United States than in any other country. We would like to change that. Banning the AR-15 won't change that. But it might prevent a horrible event from being a more horrible event, and there's no reason you need one (see above point regarding paranoid/delusional thinking) so let's move on

Mustachio said:

I'm sorry, but AR-15s are stupid and people don't need them for defense and they certainly don't need them for hunting. If they can't a lot of people in a short amount of time, then it would be sensible to agree that they serve no purpose. And it's absolute tripe that the bill of rights prevents legislation banning assault rifles or semi-automatic rifles or landmines or whatever else congress and the executive branch deem fit. We have freedom of speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, because it is a stupid and dangerous thing to do. Manufacturing and selling AR-15s is a stupid and dangerous thing to do, so we shouldn't do it.

Click to expand...

True about yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire....

However...

What you support (in supporting a ban on AR-15 style rifles) is the equivalent of banning the use of the word "Fire" in general because SOME people (very few in number) would use the word in an inappropriate way to create panic.



Think about that for a moment.


And... its not about NEEDS. We don't ban round balls due to them not being needed do we? Even despite the fact that children get hit by cars chasing those round balls that have rolled into the street?

I mean.... THINK OF THE CHILDRENZZZ!!!!!

Mustachio said:

The AR-15 isn't a gun you need, nor does any other law abiding citizen. The police may carry it, but that doesn't mean you need it.

Click to expand...

Why would the police need an AR-15 if I don't need one?

Alex Jones deffinatlly has a few screws loose, and I'm a conservative.