|
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. |
I would say that no citizens need guns, the police and the army are the ones who "need" the guns. If i'm not going hunting i don't need a gun/rifle. A gun is really hard to get as a person that is not a part of the police force or the army in sweden, a rifle is much easier, and that is only for hunting purposes. Either way as ninini said earlier if a person is held at gunpoint and they have gun of their own it's more likely that one gun will be fired and someone will get killed. I've been robbed with a gun to my head, and having a gun of my own at that point would not help me. 
|
On July 21 2012 10:44 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes, handguns and small rifles are also capable of killing humans, just not 12 humans in a row without reloading. The point is to draw a line somewhere. Leave the bears alone...
|
On July 21 2012 10:48 Kontokort wrote:I would say that no citizens need guns, the police and the army are the ones who "need" the guns. If i'm not going hunting i don't need a gun/rifle. A gun is really hard to get as a person that is not a part of the police force or the army in sweden, a rifle is much easier, and that is only for hunting purposes. Either way as ninini said earlier if a person is held at gunpoint and they have gun of their own it's more likely that one gun will be fired and someone will get killed. I've been robbed with a gun to my head, and having a gun of my own at that point would not help me.
The idea is to defend your self from the idiot robbing you.
As far as a lot of people are concerned, an armed mugger is fair game in the scheme of protecting your self.
|
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.
You are absolutely right, the bullshit being repeated from both sides over and over again just sucks.
I would also like to see some good backed up reasoning against the mentionend solution (i'd call it a first step, but that's a personal opinion from the other side of the world). There is none. Face it.
To the drum-mag: You can build it yourselves. Google, some tools and not having two left hands is enough.
To the AR-15: My brother in law owns the civilian version of the H&K G36, which is semi-auto. It's not that hard to make it full-auto as well with some tools, a little knowledge and some craftsmanship.
edit: The bear argument is not enough lol!
|
On July 21 2012 10:38 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:30 BanditX wrote: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.
What if...-scenario's are strawmen to the umphf degree. What if everyone wore bulletproof vests and gas masks at all times? This would obviously lead to less cases where the entire audience would get gassed and would allow people to escape with less injuries. Having untrained, triggerhappy citizen carry guns would provide much better chances for fellow innocents? Because that IS what you are claiming with "You don't need to be military trained to know ..."
Getting shot by concealing citizens is not better than getting shot by a maniac. Guess what? You still bleed red.
|
On July 21 2012 10:46 WTFZerg wrote:Show nested quote +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.
5.56 is designed to incapacitate and decidedly more damaging than a .22 especially at range. 5.56 is what NATO uses and is made for taking a man out of the fight instantly.
|
On July 21 2012 10:38 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:54 1Eris1 wrote: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!
Uh. .0000001% chance? My house has been burglarized twice before, I've witnessed robbery's, I know people who have been assualted in their homes; these things are not some unique occurences, they happen, quite commonly. You may mistake me for some gun loving redneck but I'm not. I don't want everyone in the street walking around with a gun, I support psychiatric and mental health checks for purchasers, I believe all but the most basic types of guns should be outright banned...but I also accept the fact that criminals will sometimes break these laws and they will do horrible things and god help me if I want a pistol available in my home in case it ever happens.
|
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.
He used a semi-automatic AR-15, which is certainly legal
However, he was using a 100-round drum magazine, which is illegal in various jursidictions (the federal hi-cap ban was lifted though). 100 rounds in a mag is not needed for hunting/self-defense. In fact, the only real use for hi-capacity mags is for range shooting and killing people.
(Source:http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/justice/colorado-shooting-weapons/index.html?iid=article_sidebar)
Also on the 5.56mm vs .22cal debate, the 5.56 offers better penetration vs body armor as well as stopping power (the ammo is much less accessible though)
|
On July 21 2012 10:46 WTFZerg wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If that is indeed the case, I would propose that only single-shot rifles be allowed (the kind where you have to reload after each shot)
Its my understanding that Colorado currently permits the sale of fully automatic assault rifles (I may be wrong, thats what I heard today on the news)
|
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.
i don't really have any reasoning why you should be allowed to own guns of higher calibers, but... i guess my reasoning would be:
there is no reason to outlaw them. if i could see some legitimate reasoning to outlaw them then maybe i would agree but i have yet to see any. the vast majority of people who own guns like that do not commit crimes with them.
|
It would have been easier if he just googled molotov cocktail, walked in the theater and threw them at random. You can't stop this shit, but it's better to be prepared for it than plug your ears and think something as simple as outlawing guns would prevent it.
|
On July 21 2012 10:46 Uhnno wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:38 guN-viCe wrote: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!
What really funny is, (i just read two of the examples given there), one of the non-gunrelated amoks was from a 37yo janitor, and he stabbed children. How on earth would you compare that to a theater-room full of grown men? The other one killed two people with his truck before stabbing more people, just imagine what wouldve happened if these two people (not the ones hit with the truck) had automatic/semi-automatic high powered rifles.
But then again, the guy posting that link cant fathom the other side, i guess its more important to arm the fuckin kids that were stabbed, so they could self-defense themselves. Or maybe next time give the teachers of your childs big shotguns, in case someone tries to hurt them.
Rather pointless to try and beat some common sense into him, maybe its for the better. He could/will kill you for that.
|
On July 21 2012 10:56 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:46 WTFZerg wrote: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. If that is indeed the case, I would propose that only single-shot rifles be allowed (the kind where you have to reload after each shot) Its my understanding that Colorado currently permits the sale of fully automatic assault rifles (I may be wrong, thats what I heard today on the news)
There is a federal ban on automatic weaponry. The only exceptions are if you have an autosear (the thing you put in an AR-15 to make it fully automatic) registered before the ban. There is an extremely limited supply of said autosears, and they can sell for an upwards of $10,000.
Illegally modifying an AR-15 to be fully automatic, however, is extremely easy.
And if you're going to ban anything but bolt-action rifles then why not ban anything but single shot handguns? I guy with a 9mm handgun with an extended mag can do almost as much damage in a crowded environment.
On July 21 2012 10:54 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:46 WTFZerg wrote: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. 5.56 is designed to incapacitate and decidedly more damaging than a .22 especially at range. 5.56 is what NATO uses and is made for taking a man out of the fight instantly.
You're right. However, you can get .22 hollowpoint ammunition, which can do a serious amount of damage to an unarmored target.
|
On July 21 2012 10:54 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:38 r00ty wrote:On July 21 2012 09:54 1Eris1 wrote: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! Uh. .0000001% chance? My house has been burglarized twice before, I've witnessed robbery's, I know people who have been assualted in their homes; these things are not some unique occurences, they happen, quite commonly. You may mistake me for some gun loving redneck but I'm not. I don't want everyone in the street walking around with a gun, I support psychiatric and mental health checks for purchasers, I believe all but the most basic types of guns should be outright banned...but I also accept the fact that criminals will sometimes break these laws and they will do horrible things and god help me if I want a pistol available in my home in case it ever happens.
Yeah, but i don't pity you on a personal level. I also take your living conditions in account. It's still pitying. I could have also written there's something wrong with your country.
edit, just to make myself clear: i also respect your opinion, first of all in your position.
|
|
|
Here's the gun Holmes used. Imagine a terminator-style high-ammunition drum roll attached to it.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Stag2wi_.jpg)
It was banned in the US from 1994-2004 under the Assault Weapons Ban.
In Canada, it is considered a Restricted Fire Arm, and requires a special licence in addition to a regular gun licence to purchase.
|
On July 21 2012 10:57 maliceee wrote:
It would have been easier if he just googled molotov cocktail, walked in the theater and threw them at random. You can't stop this shit, but it's better to be prepared for it than plug your ears and think something as simple as outlawing guns would prevent it.
If no one can stop it then why doesn't it happen all the time elsewhere in 1st world countries? It's almost always America that this shit happens in.
I'm not against a total ban of firearms but semi-automatics do not have a place in the general populance.
|
That actually looks more martial than the gun i used in the military. Quite scary, and frankly, i would not want to see my neighbor with that thing.
|
In Ontario here, the government controls sale of liquor (government owned and controlled stores). Would be a good idea for the states.
|
On July 21 2012 10:53 Uhnno wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:38 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 10:30 BanditX wrote: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. What if...-scenario's are strawmen to the umphf degree. What if everyone wore bulletproof vests and gas masks at all times? This would obviously lead to less cases where the entire audience would get gassed and the allow people to escape with less injuries. Having untrained, triggerhappy citizen carry guns would provide much better chances for fellow innocents? Because that IS what you are claiming with "You dpn't need to be military trained to know ..." Getting shot by concealing citizens is not better than getting shot by a maniac. Guess what? You still bleed red.
STRAWMAN is using words like untrained or triggerhappy to describe competent gun owners and what ifs like "what if everyone who carried was a complete idiot who had no training at all and blind fired into crowds of people hoping to hit a bad guy"
Attempting to put a crazed gunman on the ground at the risk of hitting innocent civilians or getting sprayed yourself is better than saying "well, since I'm not military or swat trained, I'll just roll over and hope he doesn't shoot me or hope his gun gets jammed or just pray to the Lord Jesus Christ". Again, I'm not going to play those odds, and I would suggest that any one with a calm disposition and 20/20 vision... get a permit and start carrying. Carrying is not high risk high reward situation. It's low risk (accidental discharge is highly uncommon in concealed carry permit holders) and even though the risk of ever running into a situation where you need it is extremely low, you'll always know that you have the best chance of coming out alive or saving people around you.... if you have put in the time to know how to react in this situation. You can believe they have and know, or you can say they are full of shit and won't be of any help when the time comes. Those of us who have.... we know who we are.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
