|
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 18:06 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 17:56 XXXSmOke wrote:
I really like the middle approach alot of ppl are taking with this debate since the events of yesterday,
I agree that hand guns are important and We have the right to use those for self defense. There's tons of news stories where a hand gun armed citizen actually stops crimes from happening.
On the other hand why the fuck, do we have citizens armed with a shotgun and AR 15's????????? The colorado guy was also able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time.
Imagine if that guy had only hand guns, do you think we would have 12 dead and 58 wounded??? Please argue that he would of had the same result, you cant.
Read up on virginia tech. EDIT: Graviton beat me too it >_<.
That was a very different situation, The guy had all the victims cornered in there classrooms with no police intervention for
10-12 minutes.
Compare that to CO shootings where police were on the scene in 90 seconds, imagine if this guy had the same amount of time as Cho? This guy had an a fraction of the time as Cho and killed 12 and wounded 58. He would of not done that with a handgun.
|
On July 21 2012 17:56 XXXSmOke wrote:
I really like the middle approach alot of ppl are taking with this debate since the events of yesterday,
I agree that hand guns are important and We have the right to use those for self defense. There's tons of news stories where a hand gun armed citizen actually stops crimes from happening.
On the other hand why the fuck, do we have citizens armed with a shotgun and AR 15's????????? The colorado guy was also able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time.
Imagine if that guy had only hand guns, do you think we would have 12 dead and 58 wounded??? Please argue that he would of had the same result, you cant.
Imagine if everyone in the theater was armed with an assault rifle. I'd say there would be maybe 1 or 2 dead and 5 wounded max.
|
I'd say the only logical solution is to have easily obtainable firearms so that people can protect themselves from all these easily obtainable firearms.
|
Imagine if everyone in the theater was armed with an assault rifle. I'd say there would be maybe 1 or 2 dead and 5 wounded max.
Yeah, its so much better when 30 armed persons look around for the armed person who shot. Maybe he would have killed/hurted less people instead the other persons will shoot each other cause they fear that might be the guy who started the shooting...
Also I fear it's more likely that people get shot (sponanteously/accidently) when everyone carries weapons.
|
On July 21 2012 18:40 BrosephBrostar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 17:56 XXXSmOke wrote:
I really like the middle approach alot of ppl are taking with this debate since the events of yesterday,
I agree that hand guns are important and We have the right to use those for self defense. There's tons of news stories where a hand gun armed citizen actually stops crimes from happening.
On the other hand why the fuck, do we have citizens armed with a shotgun and AR 15's????????? The colorado guy was also able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time.
Imagine if that guy had only hand guns, do you think we would have 12 dead and 58 wounded??? Please argue that he would of had the same result, you cant.
Imagine if everyone in the theater was armed with an assault rifle. I'd say there would be maybe 1 or 2 dead and 5 wounded max.
Excellent argument. ....
|
On July 21 2012 18:54 Uncreative_Troll wrote:Show nested quote +Imagine if everyone in the theater was armed with an assault rifle. I'd say there would be maybe 1 or 2 dead and 5 wounded max. Yeah, its so much better when 30 armed persons look around for the armed person who shot. Maybe he would have killed/hurted less people instead the other persons will shoot each other cause they fear that might be the guy who started the shooting... Also I fear it's more likely that people get shot (sponanteously/accidently) when everyone carries weapons.
Look at it this way, when was the last time you heard of a shooting spree at a firing range?
|
On July 21 2012 18:40 BrosephBrostar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 17:56 XXXSmOke wrote:
I really like the middle approach alot of ppl are taking with this debate since the events of yesterday,
I agree that hand guns are important and We have the right to use those for self defense. There's tons of news stories where a hand gun armed citizen actually stops crimes from happening.
On the other hand why the fuck, do we have citizens armed with a shotgun and AR 15's????????? The colorado guy was also able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time.
Imagine if that guy had only hand guns, do you think we would have 12 dead and 58 wounded??? Please argue that he would of had the same result, you cant.
Imagine if everyone in the theater was armed with an assault rifle. I'd say there would be maybe 1 or 2 dead and 5 wounded max.
LOL Can't tell if troll or not xD
People having access to weapons is terribad. That's why it's really rare in most inteligent countries afaik.
|
On July 21 2012 18:40 BrosephBrostar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 17:56 XXXSmOke wrote:
I really like the middle approach alot of ppl are taking with this debate since the events of yesterday,
I agree that hand guns are important and We have the right to use those for self defense. There's tons of news stories where a hand gun armed citizen actually stops crimes from happening.
On the other hand why the fuck, do we have citizens armed with a shotgun and AR 15's????????? The colorado guy was also able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time.
Imagine if that guy had only hand guns, do you think we would have 12 dead and 58 wounded??? Please argue that he would of had the same result, you cant.
Imagine if everyone in the theater was armed with an assault rifle. I'd say there would be maybe 1 or 2 dead and 5 wounded max.
I don't know if it would have been better if some people were armed in the theater. I think more would have died, think about it. The theater is really dark for one, and a Batman movie on so special effects are going off. For a civilian without being properly trained in live fire combat shooting and hitting the 1 guy in the whole theater that was the bad guy would be hard to do. Now make that 15 untrained civilians, but who knows, it could have worked out for the best.
I like guns, and I own a few myself. This is definitely a hard subject to talk about, and even harder to get anything done about it. The best thing I could ever think of was getting guns off the streets. Keep them in your house, and off the street. If you're going to buy a gun, take a hunter's safety course. There would be a lot less accidents if people would. I know that keeping them off the street wouldn't have helped in Colorado the other night, but I think it would go a long way.
|
On July 21 2012 18:40 BrosephBrostar wrote:
Imagine if everyone in the theater was armed with an assault rifle. I'd say there would be maybe 1 or 2 dead and 5 wounded max.
Don't know if you're trolling, but just in case...
You think that giving a hundred people assault rifles, putting them in a loud, crowded theater, and then shooting one of them won't result in many of the people firing at the next person to aim in their general direction? I don't know about your desire for self-preservation, but I'm willing to bet that a few of those people will react without thinking when their lives, or those of their loved ones, are threatened. Even if they do fire at the correct person, if they miss then there are two shooters. I'm sure you can see how that would quickly grow out of control.
|
On July 21 2012 19:07 mkfuba07 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 18:40 BrosephBrostar wrote:
Imagine if everyone in the theater was armed with an assault rifle. I'd say there would be maybe 1 or 2 dead and 5 wounded max. Don't know if you're trolling, but just in case... You think that giving a hundred people assault rifles, putting them in a loud, crowded theater, and then shooting one of them won't result in many of the people firing at the next person to aim in their general direction? I don't know about your desire for self-preservation, but I'm willing to bet that a few of those people will react without thinking when their lives, or those of their loved ones, are threatened. Even if they do fire at the correct person, if they miss then there are two shooters. I'm sure you can see how that would quickly grow out of control.
You're making it sound like some kind of dragon's teeth scenario, but it's much more likely that the guy would get dropped the second he opened fire, if he even had the guts to start shooting to begin with. Shooting a bunch of people prepared to shoot back requires a different kind of crazy than executing defenseless targets.
|
Look at it this way, when was the last time you heard of a shooting spree at a firing range?
I have never heard of a shooting spree at a porn store either. Guess we should sell good movies everywhere to prevent future shootings by legally weaponised maniac.
Do you really want that everyone runs around with a loaded weapon and throughout prepared to shoot? The number of people getting hurt/killed for bad reasons will raise dramatically.
|
On July 21 2012 19:15 Uncreative_Troll wrote:Show nested quote +Look at it this way, when was the last time you heard of a shooting spree at a firing range? I have never heard of a shooting spree at a porn store either. Guess we should sell good movies everywhere to prevent future shootings by legally weaponised maniac. Do you really want that everyone runs around with a loaded weapon and throughout prepared to shoot? The number of people getting hurt/killed for bad reasons will raise dramatically.
Would it? It's the same as nuclear proliferation. You can't get rid of the weapons so the best you can do is make everyone too scared of retaliation to use their own. Self-preservation goes a long way.
|
|
|
On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself.
How will you ever use that gun without infringing someone else his personal freedom?
|
On July 21 2012 19:54 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. How will you ever use that gun without infringing someone else his personal freedom?
Shooting ranges, hunting, etc. Did you think that out at all?
|
It cannot hurt to make strict legislation and background checks for people who want to own a gun, that way it is still possible to go to a shooting range or hunting but prevents alot of people to just walk into a store and buy a gun basically.
All this freedom value talk is only looking like the only straw gun enthousiasts have and they're clinging onto it like no tomorrow.
|
On July 21 2012 18:58 BrosephBrostar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 18:54 Uncreative_Troll wrote:Imagine if everyone in the theater was armed with an assault rifle. I'd say there would be maybe 1 or 2 dead and 5 wounded max. Yeah, its so much better when 30 armed persons look around for the armed person who shot. Maybe he would have killed/hurted less people instead the other persons will shoot each other cause they fear that might be the guy who started the shooting... Also I fear it's more likely that people get shot (sponanteously/accidently) when everyone carries weapons. Look at it this way, when was the last time you heard of a shooting spree at a firing range?
Too bad shooting galleries are a controlled environment, and even then, everyone in that gallery(or at least the vast majority of them) can handle and shoot a gun with ease.
|
On July 21 2012 20:09 reki- wrote:
It cannot hurt to make strict legislation and background checks for people who want to own a gun, that way it is still possible to go to a shooting range or hunting but prevents alot of people to just walk into a store and buy a gun basically.
All this freedom value talk is only looking like the only straw gun enthousiasts have and they're clinging onto it like no tomorrow.
Yeah liberty is so overrated. I wish the government would just manage my life for me.
|
Are you even thinking before replying? I assume you also want to make it harder for psychotics to own a gun.
|
rofl at the guys argueing about the fact that is terribad to have 30 people with assault rifle in the theatre. Sure most people would most lilely die if a guy starts shooting in a dark place with weird loud noises in the background, but the same guy started shoting also because there weren't other armed people, if he knew he can get shot right away, most likely he wouldn't have started shotting.
Also commentating on the event without having video of how it all started or whatever is weird, say if he rose up and pulled up a gun, if the guy next to him also had a gun, most likely he would've shot him dead before he started the killing spree. All scenarios are possible when more people have guns, when 1 guy has a gun, there is only one scenario : a lot of innocent people will get killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
