On December 06 2007 22:58 Lazerflip! wrote: Pro gun control people are so stupid it makes me want to vomit. If guns were illegal, criminals would still get the guns, just like criminals still get the drugs that they need. Gun control stops law-abiding citizens from getting guns, not people planning a suicidal mass-shooting. If you were going to end your life and kill mass people, I don't think a silly little law would stop you. What the law DOES do (and lack of concealed carry) is prevent law abiding citizens from saving their own lives, and the lives of countless many others, and render them unable to do anything but watch as a crazy kid guns down innocent people in a fucking shopping mall. If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection. But people who are pro-gun control don't care about any of this, they just care about their own agenda of having the government restrict every part of our lives. And this is the result.
P.S. If you don't live in American, here is a little tidbit of information for you. I am 19 years old, and I can legally buy an assault weapon such as an AK-47, but I have to be age 21 to purchase a handgun. Grenades are illegal though, but that just supports my argument that even if something is banned, it will always find it's way into the hands of the criminals, and a concealed carry law would even the odds for law-abiding citizens to save their own asses.
Pro gun control people want to make you vomit? It's people like you that are hysterical about others and generalize groups of people that disgust me. How can you say that gun control would be just a silly little law? Think about it, if guns were illegal, how incredibly hard would it be for an average person, such as that 19 year old emo asshole, to acquire the weapon and then the ammunition? You talk about saving your own life, that's great. So you expect random strangers to just bust out of nowhere and start shooting at you? Seriously, do you expect to be attacked any minute of your life. And then you generalize pro-gun control people again and commit libel by writing all they care about is their own agenda and having the gov. restrict people's lives?
Your opinions on this issue are so false and worthless.
.45 ACP = 157.0 dB unsuppressed AAC Black Box = 28-40 dB reduction
So you're telling me that a 129 dB (or 117 dB assuming the greatest reduction) gunshot is "stealthy," when a pneumatic riveter (or trombone) is just as loud (at 125 dB and up to 114 dB, respectively)? I don't see assassins toting pneumatic riveters (or trombones) around for "stealthy" kills.
Also, note how hearing loss begins at 140 dB, and that unsuppressed gunshots exceed that. Suppressors bring the dB report below the damage level, hence their existence. Suppressors were designed to reduce noise pollution in residential areas and to reduce hearing loss.
It's really not my fault they're so widely used in movies and video games, and are portrayed as completely silent.
I actually just saw a thing on the news last night about some common toys (when held directly to the ear, like kids do) have up to 106 dB and that prolonged usage can cause hearing damage.
Just to give a little comparison an airplane is something like 120-140 dB (I think they said) and normal conversation would be around 65 dB. yea, here is a chart: http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html
Its irreversible damage because the little hair cells that float in the ear liquid break or whatever.
Gun laws will not solve these kinds of freak occurrences.
On December 07 2007 00:11 Fen wrote: Once again, another public shooting in america. Once again, americans try to argue that their retarded gun laws have nothing to do with the shooing Once again, the world laughs at the stupidity of these people and waits for the next shooting.
This post may sound like I think its funny that people got killed. I DO NOT think that. It is a terrible tragedy. However I do think it is funny that people can be soo blindly ignorant. If you cannot see that your countries gun laws ARE the reason there are soo many shootings, then you deserve to be the next one shot.
Well put. The only reason I'm so angry about this issue is the fact that I love the positive sides of America and am very loyal to its citizens. I only wish this bullshit can stop.
On December 07 2007 09:03 Mayson wrote: Someone suffering from depression shouldn't be denied their 2nd Amendment rights, but someone on prescription drugs for any mental or emotional issue should be denied until a safe period after the prescription has been revoked.
You are not allowed to buy guns if you are deemed by a judge a danger to yourself or others... which makes me wonder how the Vtech killer got guns... I guess I could look it up but someone must know.
Virginia has different laws. There's nothing preventing someone with mental issues from legally purchasing a firearm.
.45 ACP = 157.0 dB unsuppressed AAC Black Box = 28-40 dB reduction
So you're telling me that a 129 dB (or 117 dB assuming the greatest reduction) gunshot is "stealthy," when a pneumatic riveter (or trombone) is just as loud (at 125 dB and up to 114 dB, respectively)? I don't see assassins toting pneumatic riveters (or trombones) around for "stealthy" kills.
Also, note how hearing loss begins at 140 dB, and that unsuppressed gunshots exceed that. Suppressors bring the dB report below the damage level, hence their existence. Suppressors were designed to reduce noise pollution in residential areas and to reduce hearing loss.
It's really not my fault they're so widely used in movies and video games, and are portrayed as completely silent.
I actually just saw a thing on the news last night about some common toys (when held directly to the ear, like kids do) have up to 106 dB and that prolonged usage can cause hearing damage.
Just to give a little comparison an airplane is something like 120-140 dB (I think they said) and normal conversation would be around 65 dB. yea, here is a chart: http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html
Its irreversible damage because the little hair cells that float in the ear liquid break or whatever.
Gun laws will not solve these kinds of freak occurrences.
Exactly.
That's why I laugh so hard at ignorant people who think a "silencer" makes a gunshot silent. All it does it take the decibel level down enough to where it's no longer dangerous to your hearing.
Then people get pissed when people find out suppressors are completely legal in most states in the US. "zomg ther wil b ninja killinz"
Idiots. It's bad enough they think gun control will work, despite the fact that criminals, on a daily basis, defy the gun laws already in place.
On December 07 2007 10:29 Jibba wrote: Mayson, how come you haven't responded to me yet? Is it because your claims were baseless? Yeah, it probably is.
Wrong. He was a criminal before the shooting started.
He was in possession of an assault rifle, which isn't legal at 19 years of age. He was in possession of hand grenades, which isn't legal for any private citizen.
This makes him a criminal before the shooting occurred.
Right, I said it was irrelevant to this case, but what about the VA Tech shootings? Do you honestly believe a 21/30/50 year old should be able to own an assault rifle?
As for the Supreme Court rulings, when? You really are a nitwit. Supreme Court rulings on the second Amendment primarily cover whether it's designed to be a restriction of the federal government only, or of both the federal government and state government. They ruled that it's the prior, but specifically said:
The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers.
Oh--I misinterpreted another article I had read. It wasn't about the Supreme Court, but about something else.
Edit: "This case is often misunderstood or quoted out of context by claiming Cruikshank held the Second Amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear arms." (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html)
I read about this case, where the results were mis-quoted.
That's fine, you just responded rudely so I had to do the same.
Seriously though, do you think private citizens (of legal age, non-felons, etc.) should be able to own assault rifles? It sounds like the kid took it from his step father.
Well, first I have to ask: do you actually know what an assault rifle is, or are you just repeating the words you hear on the news?
The term "assault rifle" implies there is the ability to select the firing mode. For example, the M16A2, the rifle issued to the US military, has three fire mods: safe, semi-automatic, and three-round burst. That makes it an assault rifle (plus the addition of the pistol grip and separate stock).
Now, does a civilian have the right to own one of those? Sure. I mean, I could go buy an AR-15 civilian model which is semi-automatic only, and I could still fire it just as fast.
The only difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic in terms of self-defense is that one firing mode allows you to waste more ammunition faster. If you get hit once or twice from any kind of rifle caliber, you're pretty much done. It doesn't matter how many times you have to pull the trigger.
Ok, well any type of automatic rifle. Morally, should regular citizens be able to purchase those weapons?
Certainly it wouldn't be used for self defense in these situations, as no one walks around with a rifle or takes them to the mall. Would you even use it to protect your house instead of a handgun? You'd probably cause more damage.
Very few people will use a rifle caliber for the purpose of home-defense. Rifle calibers typically over-penetrate, meaning a shot fired legally in self-defense at an intruder can over-penetrate common materials found in a residence (i.e. walls) and hit innocent people.
If you want an effective weapon for home-defense, buy a 12 gauge shotgun, and use 00 buck shot.
There are plenty of people who do use rifles for self-defense, and whether a rifle is fully-automatic or semi-automatic makes very little difference. One wastes ammunition; the other does not. Besides, a semi-automatic can be fired just as quickly as an automatic, so the rate of fire makes absolutely no difference with regards to "lethality."
If you're shot by a semi-automatic AR-15, you're just as dead as if you're shot by a fully-automatic M4 (military designation for the AR-15 platform).
Wrong. He was a criminal before the shooting started.
He was in possession of an assault rifle, which isn't legal at 19 years of age. He was in possession of hand grenades, which isn't legal for any private citizen.
This makes him a criminal before the shooting occurred.
Right, I said it was irrelevant to this case, but what about the VA Tech shootings? Do you honestly believe a 21/30/50 year old should be able to own an assault rifle?
As for the Supreme Court rulings, when? You really are a nitwit. Supreme Court rulings on the second Amendment primarily cover whether it's designed to be a restriction of the federal government only, or of both the federal government and state government. They ruled that it's the prior, but specifically said:
The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers.
Yeah. If you are defending your house, use a shotgun. If you are going to a gun fight, bring a rifle. If you are concealing a weapon, use a Nikita Missile Launcher (2 of these suggestions are actually quite reasonable although I doubt many people here are planning on going to gun fights).
Well, then again, law-abiding citizens don't obtain their CCW permit with the intent of using it. Most people don't buy a shotgun with the intent of using it, either.
The reason the topic of assault rifles is always so heated is because they (1) aren't typical hunting rifles, and (2) the media has blown their killing power out of proportion.
Let me put it this way:
Take a Remington 700. It's a bolt-action rifle often using by Marine Force Recon Scout snipers. It shoots a .308 caliber bullet. That means it will split you in half when it hits you.
Now take a Rock River Arms CAR-A4. It's a semi-automatic version of the M4 currently issued to some soldiers in the US military.
But also include an M16A2, the standard issue assault rifle in the US Army.
If you get hit by any of the three, you are most likely going to die. The only difference is that with the Remington 700, you'll take one hit, and then it'll likely be three or more seconds before you'll be hit again. But, keep in mind: you were a goner after the first hit regardless of successive hits.
With either the CAR-A4 or the M16A2, you could take numerous hits in quick succession, but again, you're pretty much gone after the first hit anyways.
I make no distinction in killing power between any of the three. I only divide them based on operation.
On December 07 2007 11:12 Jibba wrote: Who uses those weapons for self defense? And is it reasonable for them to be using such a powerful weapon over a hand gun?
Right, it seems to me at the very least, regardless of the handgun decision, no one should purchasing an AK-47.
Many, many people use shotguns for home-defense.
I know it's safe to say a minority of people who use arms for home-defense use rifles. Keep in mind we law-abiding citizens do our homework, and know the ballistic behavior of the firearms we intend to use for any given purpose, and understand our legal liabilities as a result of using a weapon.
Beliefs on gun control are largely a matter of culture. Consider Holland. The Dutch are brought believing guns are unnecessary and allowing their fellow citizens to have them makes no sense. Likewise the laws dictate owning guns is illegal. This is largely a cultural norm that developed in the 1900's and the results have been amazing for Holland. Holland has one of the lowest murder rates and anyone who has a gun is a complete shit bag.
As an American I was not brought up to think this way about guns and beliefs regarding gun control vary largely in America. I believe strongly in adopting a stance similar to what the Dutch have done. If you can convince your entire population guns suck, then you won't have a large issue with gun abuse. This has worked for many countries.
The problem is that gun control already exists to an extent, and it's done nothing. The only actual positive effects on crime have been shown to originate from allowing citizens to legally own, carry, and use firearms in self-defense.
Studies done with incarcerated criminals showed a trend: criminals were deterred from committing crimes when they knew there was a chance they could be injured by the homeowner with a firearm.
Criminals, by definition, do not care about the laws. Do you think they'll suddenly give up their guns if gun control is made more strict? No. They didn't care about the Assault Weapons Ban of 1986, so they sure as hell won't care about whatever laws the government comes up.
EPT
