|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 21 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence. Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right? That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks. The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts. Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous. I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle. A 24 year old med student? Take a minute and consider how stupid that is.
Was the rifle fully automatic? If so, then I highly doubt it was a legal weapon, as it is incredibly expensive to own a legal automatic weapon these days.
|
On July 21 2012 10:24 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:04 BanditX wrote:On July 21 2012 09:58 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations. This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can. With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain. ...What? No really. The hell did I just read? Civilians with guns in a dark crowded theater would have actually made the problem dramatically worse. This isn't some goddamn movie with people ducking behind tables in a fire fight. Jesus man. Why does everyone on your side of the argument treat concealed carriers as if they are just dumb stupid cows who go UHHH maybe if I point this thing toward the bad guy I'll hit him lolol. MAYBE IF I BLIND FIRE IN THE AIR IT WILL RICHOCHET OFF A CEILING BEAM AND INTO HIS NECK DERP. Fuck man not everyone is an imbecile. Seriously, not a single person I know or train with who concealed carries does so without hundreds and hundreds of rounds through the chamber, personal protection seminars/instruction, and a grave sense of responsibility. I am not denying the darkness and the gas would be an unbelievably high factor against a citizen 6 rows up gasping for breath, but you saying that 83 people being shot with no returned fire is much more ideal than trained, armed citizens doing their best to take him down and possibly the risk sending strays at the seats around him, possibly hitting someone, is just fucking stupid..... what are the odds that they hit and kill an innocent vs the odds that he gets taken down before he sprays 83 people? Who wouldn't play those odds EVERY TIME? No really....Jesus man.
Real life is not some fucking comic/book action movie. I don't care how good with a gun you are, you are not trained or experienced in using it in a panic situation. Which is what the post I was replying to was implying. "Some hero with a gun could have saved everyone!!!" Maybe. Very likely not though. Get off it.
|
On July 21 2012 10:25 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence. Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right? That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks. The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts. Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous. I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle. A 24 year old med student? Take a minute and consider how stupid that is. Oh, I agree with you about the assault rifle. I think it's ridiculous how some people can procure these powerful weapons. I'm all for way tighter regulations on these types of weapons. My point though, is that crazy people who want to kill a lot of people can do so without guns. Feel free to read these short articles on some Japan massacres. A car, knife, sword, axe, and shotgun were used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_JapanI guess we should ban knives,swords, shotguns, and cars too because people can kill many, many people with them before help arrives(ie guns)
It's really hard to look at that list and not think of it as grasping at straws...
|
On July 21 2012 10:30 WTFZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence. Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right? That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks. The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts. Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous. I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle. A 24 year old med student? Take a minute and consider how stupid that is. Was the rifle fully automatic? If so, then I highly doubt it was a legal weapon, as it is incredibly expensive to own a legal automatic weapon these days.
It was a semiauto ar15. Someone mentioned a drum mag but I've not heard that on the news.
|
On July 21 2012 10:05 Heweree wrote:
It certainly would've been great if someone could have taken this guy down, but the odds are completely against him and more so indicate it would do nothing but get you and the people around you killed.
Captain BuzzKillington"
To Buzz (or he who requoted you):
I'd say the odds are already stacked against you by being stuck in a theater with a gunman....I honestly don't see how it could hurt. Making him more enraged? What would that do, make him pull his trigger faster? lol. As if he wasn't planning on spraying you and the people beside you and the woman who ran in front of you ANYWAY, at least give those around you a fighting chance by trying to put this guy down. Also it's kind of irrelevant since a few shots from any concealed carry 9mm (some carry larger) have the stopping power to put him in a stun or on the ground even directly in the middle of the tac vest, but witnesses say people clearly saw his helmet, mask, and vest as he was walking in, before he ever tossed the grenade, fired a shot in the air, or started spraying, so you would know what you are dealing with before you draw.
|
I live in a very small and extremely liberal country in Europe in which its society is in all cases united against the idea of citizens owning weapons.
Nonetheless, 1 year ago and 8 kilometres from my hometown a 24 year old male killed 6 people and wounded 17 with a semi-automatic Smith & Wesson M&P15-22, a stainless steel Colt .45-caliber pistol and a Taurus .44 Magnum revolver in a crowded mall.
I really do agree with the statement that "guns don't kill people, people do".
Personally I am disgusted by the idea that I'm having to be depended on government for my safety.
|
On July 21 2012 10:32 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:25 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence. Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right? That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks. The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts. Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous. I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle. A 24 year old med student? Take a minute and consider how stupid that is. Oh, I agree with you about the assault rifle. I think it's ridiculous how some people can procure these powerful weapons. I'm all for way tighter regulations on these types of weapons. My point though, is that crazy people who want to kill a lot of people can do so without guns. Feel free to read these short articles on some Japan massacres. A car, knife, sword, axe, and shotgun were used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_JapanI guess we should ban knives,swords, shotguns, and cars too because people can kill many, many people with them before help arrives(ie guns) It's really hard to look at that list and not think of it as grasping at straws...
Lemme guess, you didn't even read the articles, did you? 
|
On July 21 2012 09:54 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:52 InoyouS2 wrote:
No point in legalising guns, the last thing you want is for citizens to start thinking they should take the roll of the police. Chaos is what occurs in those scenarios, and trusting people to make the right decisions, especially when panicking and under stress, is completely stupid.
The USA is just far too used to their country being the wild-west, that might make it comfortable for some Americans to think that owning a gun means that they can 'defend themselves' but all it'll cause is more killing and less security.
Also the people who go into theatres and kill people or those who crash airplanes into buildings will continue to do that regardless of how many civilians are armed, it doesn't matter, they will do what they want, because they don't mind getting killed. The worst thing that can happen is that even more people get killed in crossfire because an idiot with a gun, scared of everything that moves, thinks he's helping by pulling that trigger.
TL;DR: The only reason guns aren't outlawed in America is because people have become too accustomed to thinking about number one, and not particularly caring about the safety of others. Err, that's exactly why guns are legal, because people want to keep themselves and their families safe. (and too hunt)
I pity people like you. I don't feel having the need of carrying a firearm and still me and my family are perfectly safe. A scary dog and a fucking sign are enough and not even necessary.
I got the training in the army and have been in some scary situations. And if i wanted, i could get a firearm. But why? To prepare for that 0,00....000001% where it would come in handy? You can be struck by lightning you know. Or get shot in the back by some madman (see what i did there?). [enter endlessly long list of other dangers here]
The vast majority of people arguing pro gun are just propaganda victims. It's sad. In this whole thread there's not a single fully thought out and backed up reasoning or statistic backing up the gun control laws in most of the United States. Just piles upon piles of bullshit.
You can't really compare countries, but think of the UK: There's bad areas and thugs as well. There's poverty, burglary and completely deluded people and everything else. And you know what? Not even the average fucking cop carries a gun! Now look at the statistics... Or rather REALITY!
|
On July 21 2012 10:30 BanditX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:24 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 10:04 BanditX wrote:On July 21 2012 09:58 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations. This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can. With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain. ...What? No really. The hell did I just read? Civilians with guns in a dark crowded theater would have actually made the problem dramatically worse. This isn't some goddamn movie with people ducking behind tables in a fire fight. Jesus man. Why does everyone on your side of the argument treat concealed carriers as if they are just dumb stupid cows who go UHHH maybe if I point this thing toward the bad guy I'll hit him lolol. MAYBE IF I BLIND FIRE IN THE AIR IT WILL RICHOCHET OFF A CEILING BEAM AND INTO HIS NECK DERP. Fuck man not everyone is an imbecile. Seriously, not a single person I know or train with who concealed carries does so without hundreds and hundreds of rounds through the chamber, personal protection seminars/instruction, and a grave sense of responsibility. I am not denying the darkness and the gas would be an unbelievably high factor against a citizen 6 rows up gasping for breath, but you saying that 83 people being shot with no returned fire is much more ideal than trained, armed citizens doing their best to take him down and possibly the risk sending strays at the seats around him, possibly hitting someone, is just fucking stupid..... what are the odds that they hit and kill an innocent vs the odds that he gets taken down before he sprays 83 people? Who wouldn't play those odds EVERY TIME? No really....Jesus man. Real life is not some fucking comic/book action movie. I don't care how good with a gun you are, you are not trained or experienced in using it in a panic situation. Which is what the post I was replying to was implying. "Some hero with a gun could have saved everyone!!!" Maybe. Very likely not though. Get off it.
It's not just "some hero". As someone else mentioned, what if there were 5 of the armed citizens? You don't need to be military trained to know that as soon as someone takes a shot, he will turn to deal with it, and that is your opportunity. It's simple wolfpack instinct.
The guy chose correctly walking into a movie which was probably 80% 22 and below. Who knows what his chances wouldv'e been in a movie with a few older heatpackers sitting above him.
|
On July 21 2012 10:33 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:30 WTFZerg wrote:On July 21 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence. Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right? That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks. The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts. Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous. I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle. A 24 year old med student? Take a minute and consider how stupid that is. Was the rifle fully automatic? If so, then I highly doubt it was a legal weapon, as it is incredibly expensive to own a legal automatic weapon these days. It was a semiauto ar15. Someone mentioned a drum mag but I've not heard that on the news.
Ah. Well semi-automatic rifles are common enough. Although drum magazines are illegal in some states. Not sure about Colorado.
|
On July 21 2012 10:32 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:25 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence. Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right? That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks. The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts. Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous. I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle. A 24 year old med student? Take a minute and consider how stupid that is. Oh, I agree with you about the assault rifle. I think it's ridiculous how some people can procure these powerful weapons. I'm all for way tighter regulations on these types of weapons. My point though, is that crazy people who want to kill a lot of people can do so without guns. Feel free to read these short articles on some Japan massacres. A car, knife, sword, axe, and shotgun were used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_JapanI guess we should ban knives,swords, shotguns, and cars too because people can kill many, many people with them before help arrives(ie guns) It's really hard to look at that list and not think of it as grasping at straws...
His point is simply you can mass murder without firearms.
|
On July 21 2012 10:35 derpinator wrote:
I live in a very small and extremely liberal country in Europe in which its society is in all cases united against the idea of citizens owning weapons.
Nonetheless, 1 year ago and 8 kilometres from my hometown a 24 year old male killed 6 people and wounded 17 with a semi-automatic Smith & Wesson M&P15-22, a stainless steel Colt .45-caliber pistol and a Taurus .44 Magnum revolver in a crowded mall.
Probably got his gun from America. Gotta drive up that business!
|
This thread has gone completely circular; i keep reading the same arguments all over again. Maybe we can find common ground?
I would like to put this forth:
James Holmes bought his AR-15 in Colorado legally. An argument could be made that people should be able to have handguns for self-protection. It is my opinion that all rifles with a caliber larger than .22, all shotguns, all weapons with a fully automatic setting, and all sub-machine guns should be illegal for any citizen to own who is not a current or retired law enforcement officer. A program which was successful in New York City in the 90s allowed anyone to turn in a gun to the NYPD, no questions asked, and receive $$ for it. This could be reinstated across the country. Larger firearms could still be allowed at firing ranges as long as the weapons are registered and never leave the range. Both these measures should be enacted in all 50 states. If you disagree with me please provide reasoning why.
|
On July 21 2012 10:39 BanditX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:35 derpinator wrote:
I live in a very small and extremely liberal country in Europe in which its society is in all cases united against the idea of citizens owning weapons.
Nonetheless, 1 year ago and 8 kilometres from my hometown a 24 year old male killed 6 people and wounded 17 with a semi-automatic Smith & Wesson M&P15-22, a stainless steel Colt .45-caliber pistol and a Taurus .44 Magnum revolver in a crowded mall.
Probably got his gun from America. Gotta drive up that business!
You would think he would have European weapons.
|
On July 21 2012 10:41 TheFish7 wrote:
This thread has gone completely circular; i keep reading the same arguments all over again. Maybe we can find common ground?
I would like to put this forth:
James Holmes bought his AR-15 in Colorado legally. An argument could be made that people should be able to have handguns for self-protection. It is my opinion that all rifles with a caliber larger than .22, all shotguns, all weapons with a fully automatic setting, and all sub-machine guns should be illegal for any citizen to own who is not a current or retired law enforcement officer. A program which was successful in New York City in the 90s allowed anyone to turn in a gun to the NYPD, no questions asked, and receive $$ for it. This could be reinstated across the country. Larger firearms could still be allowed at firing ranges as long as the weapons are registered and never leave the range. Both these measures should be enacted in all 50 states. If you disagree with me please provide reasoning why.
Just to poke holes in your idea, what about dangerous wild animals? Surely a .22lr is just going to piss that brown bear off. That being said you can acquire large capacity .22 rifles which are just as capable of killing humans.
|
Guns make you feel powerful and power tends to reveal a person's worst traits. It's far easier to commit crime when you feel to posses power. Other weapons do not compare to firearms in that regard. All can inflict violence, but with a gun you only need to pull a trigger to inflict massive damage or kill. The simplicity of this act makes firearms far more dangerous than any other type of weapon.
The right to own and carry guns is nothing but a right for the sake of personal freedom.
|
On July 21 2012 10:41 TheFish7 wrote:
This thread has gone completely circular; i keep reading the same arguments all over again. Maybe we can find common ground?
I would like to put this forth:
James Holmes bought his AR-15 in Colorado legally. An argument could be made that people should be able to have handguns for self-protection. It is my opinion that all rifles with a caliber larger than .22, all shotguns, all weapons with a fully automatic setting, and all sub-machine guns should be illegal for any citizen to own who is not a current or retired law enforcement officer. A program which was successful in New York City in the 90s allowed anyone to turn in a gun to the NYPD, no questions asked, and receive $$ for it. This could be reinstated across the country. Larger firearms could still be allowed at firing ranges as long as the weapons are registered and never leave the range. Both these measures should be enacted in all 50 states. If you disagree with me please provide reasoning why.
AR-15s, afaik, can be chambered to shoot .22 ammunition.
Hell, 5.56 is only, what, .1mm larger than a .22?
Shotguns are premiere hunting weapons.
Fully automatic weapons are already illegal except in cases where they have an autosear registered before 1986 I think it is.
Also it's extraordinary easy to modify a lot of weapons into being fully automatic.
|
On July 21 2012 10:38 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:32 Tarot wrote:On July 21 2012 10:25 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence. Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right? That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks. The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts. Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous. I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle. A 24 year old med student? Take a minute consider how stupid that is. Oh, I agree with you about the assault rifle. I think it's ridiculous how some people can procure these powerful weapons. I'm all for way tighter regulations on these types of weapons. My point though, is that crazy people who want to kill a lot of people can do so without guns. Feel free to read these short articles on some Japan massacres. A car, knife, sword, axe, and shotgun were used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_JapanI guess we should ban knives,swords, shotguns, and cars too because people can kill many, many people with them before help arrives(ie guns) It's really hard to look at that list and not think of it as grasping at straws... Lemme guess, you didn't even read the articles, did you?
30 deaths with shotgun / axe / sword massacre.
15 deaths and 15 injured in the two massacres where no firearms were used.
Firearms are definitely great!
|
On July 21 2012 10:25 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence. Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right? That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks. The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts. Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous. I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle. A 24 year old med student? Take a minute and consider how stupid that is. Oh, I agree with you about the assault rifle. I think it's ridiculous how some people can procure these powerful weapons. I'm all for way tighter regulations on these types of weapons. My point though, is that crazy people who want to kill a lot of people can do so without guns. Feel free to read these short articles on some Japan massacres. A car, knife, sword, axe, and shotgun were used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_JapanI guess we should ban knives,swords, shotguns, and cars too because people can kill many, many people with them before help arrives(ie guns)
Dude, three massacres over the past century? You're proving my point for me.
No one is suggesting banning all things. I'm just suggesting we use common sense.
I do not think I could stab 91 people in a crowded movie theatre before I got caught, shot, or the shit kicked out of me. You can barely do that in most videogames.
And affordable cars have revolutionized the design of cities and industries, altered all aspects of life and have contributed trillions of dollars to the economy over the past 70 years. Selling a car is NOT the same as selling a military grade assault rifle to someone with not credentials or training.
|
On July 21 2012 10:30 WTFZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence. Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right? That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks. The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts. Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous. I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle. A 24 year old med student? Take a minute and consider how stupid that is. Was the rifle fully automatic? If so, then I highly doubt it was a legal weapon, as it is incredibly expensive to own a legal automatic weapon these days.
Semi automatic ... but with a 90 round drum roll :0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
