SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

yeah

I'll start this off :) I'll let him post his reply if he wants :p Basically, him and I agree for the most part on some topics.

From: Luke L
I'm not "hearing" it from anyone - it's my own opinion, that many people agree with. But don't get me wrong - I do see your side of the argument, I just don't agree. If some people had it their way a legit farmer who wanted a high caliber round to kill long distance annoyances (groundhogs, etc. ) would need to give their blood, fingerprints, DNA, as well as paying $10 a round (your $1 a round example… I WISH I could pay less then $4.25 for most of my rounds :P) and just generally go through hell to buy a gun. Meanwhile you have someone such as a "gangster" or killer who can meet up with someone from Craigslist and easily purchase a weapon.

Why make all these laws to bother law abiding citizens, when your not even effecting the people the law is targeting? It makes no sense.

I say, have more concealed carry states, but also ENCOURAGE the use of the right, and the proper use of the weapon. Colorado is a concealed carry state and although many people DID have guns, they failed to use them. Why? Because they were uneducated and afraid too. If it were myself, after he fired the first shot, I would have blown a hole in his chest (I'm also tired of the media saying he had a better vest then the police. His vest could only stop up to a bit over a .22). But then again, not as many people can react in such a dramatic situation, but a bit of training and leadership skills could definitely help them. I say laws should be made for gun safety/ general use classes - not gun prohibiting laws.

Also, so we don't spam the thread, PM me your reply. And for the record, I respect your opinion and look forward to hearing from you ^.^

edit: and as for this part: "the stupid NRA raises all hell saying we are taking away their rights. What rights would be taken away? There's nothing stating you have the right to own an illegal gun." I'm not for, or against, the NRA (I mainly try to do my best to form and hold my own opinions by observation) but I am about 99% positive the NRA has NEVER claimed they had a right to unregistered weapons. They gladly register their guns, they just don't want a normal citizen wishing to defend their selves having to make their way through a maze of legal bullshit just to exercise their second amendment right to bear arms.

I have nothing against responsible, law abiding people buying and owning weapons. Hell, I have a few shotguns that I keep hidden. It's the insane, crazy, and people who break the laws that ruin it. I know some politicians want the process of owning a gun to change drastically, and that over control is not the answer. It will only promote more law breaking people to gain illegal guns.

I was born and raised in the country, in the deep south of Alabama. I know how to carry and shoot weapons. But a lot of people who are buying weapons and getting permits don't even know how to hold them properly. If you can't hold and shoot a weapon correctly, then you don't need to have one on you.

I also think that we are thinking of two different versions of gun control :p I'm talking about doing something to keep illegal weapons out of peoples hands. The process of obtaining a gun needs to change, but not very much. All we have to do is get rid of the illegal guns (I know, easier said than done), and nothing really has to change.

I think people need to go to a gun school in order to get their weapons, since it will teach them the proper ways of using it. That's the only thing that I think should change.

As for my comment about the NRA, there was a politician who made a comment about controlling the amount of guns that are in circuit, he was focusing on illegal guns. The NRA went into a fury about it, and caused a huge lash of anger. I'll try to find the article, it was a while ago.

EDIT: YoHoJo, instead of just plain deleting posts, couldn't you just move them here? There were some awesome points on that thread.

i really dont know what to think on this topic. but i will say that currently in Stanislaus county, it is very hard to obtain a concealed gun license (or whatever its called). my friend recently retired from the police force and he loves to tlk about how long it took for him to finally be able to get his license, even with his background.

dont really know much about other counties/states/countries though.

I want a nuclear missle in my backyard to defend myself against pakistan. No to weapon/gun control.

hurr durr

From: eska
I want a nuclear missle in my backyard to defend myself against pakistan. No to weapon/gun control.

hurr durr

Why Pakistan…?

From: P1nky
Why Pakistan…?

Muslim arabs going to launch a sucide astronaut with nuke on him missle right on my lawn, I can feel it.

From: eska
Muslim arabs going to launch a sucide astronaut with nuke on him missle right on my lawn, I can feel it.

Hope you are trolling lol, cause Arab = Pakistan … No.

What is the reason for civilians to have small or hand weapons? In the Netherlands we don't allow automatic rifles and guns smaller then x(I don't know x). People can't carry a gun under there coat if it is big, people aren't allowed to have the gun loaded at all times and guns may not be taking into the public unless it is taking to a shooting range.

Yeh cuz the netherlandz is like zi sickest

I think every US citizen has the right to own a weapon if they have legally obtained it. Automatic rifles, drum magazines, and stuff like that probably don't need to be owned by your average citizen though. The media does not know what an "assault rifle" is. I am also a firm believer in the right to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit. Here is an interesting article:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/two-aurora-shootings-one-widely-known-the-other-ignored.html

From: eska
Muslim arabs going to launch a sucide astronaut with nuke on him missle right on my lawn, I can feel it.

The ignorance is clear in this one. This is the reason why most eastern people hate Americans.

Here in the UK the problem is knives not guns, I heard some shocking statistic that 70% of people stabbed are done so with their own weapon, people use them more for defence than offence, then it backfires…

I say fine, but ban certain guns. Why should an automatic gun be legal? What could someone really do with an automatic weapon besides mass murdering.

Trust me you can defend yourself just find with a Pistol or something along those lines. Even a hunting rifle should be allowed, but automatic weapons just seem unnecessary. (Not sure on everything I just said, I just know the guy had an automatic weapon he bought legally)

From: R4nd0m
I say fine, but ban certain guns. Why should an automatic gun be legal? What could someone really do with an automatic weapon besides mass murdering.

Trust me you can defend yourself just find with a Pistol or something along those lines. Even a hunting rifle should be allowed, but automatic weapons just seem unnecessary. (Not sure on everything I just said, I just know the guy had an automatic weapon he bought legally)

Believe it or not, farmers use Automatic guns for mining operations :s
They pump bullets into the ground to make a hole. This was on the news a while back (not Fox).

E*

From: eska
Muslim arabs going to launch a sucide astronaut with nuke on him missle right on my lawn, I can feel it.

The ignorance is clear in this one. This is the reason why most eastern people hate Americans.

I felt like I was blaming eska directly. No, i'm saying that ALOT of Americans group people with racial slurs such as "paki", "arab", "terrorist". There are some people like that in my school:

http://www.openfile.ca/toronto/toronto/text/brampton-teens-racist-youtube-rant-sparks-viral-response

That happened in my school. As some of my closest friends are "turbanators" (most of whom don't sport Turbans), this didn't go down well with them. They took action by completely beating her up :p
In the video (its on WSHH), she calls them "paki", where as they aren't the same.


/myrant.

I don't care. Criminals are going to obtain guns no matter what, some people like to have them just for protection, and some shoot for sport, and do it legally and safely.

From: Awkwardsaw
I don't care. Criminals are going to obtain guns no matter what, some people like to have them just for protection, and some shoot for sport, and do it legally and safely.

Exactly.
Just like how crack or heroin is illegal, yet people still get it, so can they get guns for the right price.

Thread closed.

Shay I am dispointed. I would have expected that a troll like you would've been able to spot an obvious troll post. You have failed me. :(

Why not just carry an RPG around on your shoulder and use it when someone is doing something you dont like….?
Pistols even then no.

I vote not to gun allowance. It just leads to issues.

I have nothing to say on the subject. I'm just glad that as a 19 year old I can legally own FAL's, AR15's, M92's, ect. Yet I still have a hard time getting hold of a pistol because [sarcasm]they are so much more deadly. [/sarcasm]

I'm glad my state is an open carry, machine gun state WITH the Castle Doctrine in affect.

Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost $5,000. Because if a bullet cost $5,000, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders. That'd be it. Every time someone gets shot, people will be like, ''Damn, he must have did something. S**t, they put $20,000 worth of bullets in his ass.'' People would think before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost $5,000. ''Man, l would blow your f**king head off, if l could afford it. l'm gonna get me another job, l'm gonna start saving some money, and you're a dead man! You better hope l can't get no bullets on layaway.'' So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you won't have to go to no doctor
to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back. ''l believe you got my property.''

From: Godric
Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost $5,000. Because if a bullet cost $5,000, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders. That'd be it. Every time someone gets shot, people will be like, ''Damn, he must have did something. S**t, they put $20,000 worth of bullets in his ass.'' People would think before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost $5,000. ''Man, l would blow your f**king head off, if l could afford it. l'm gonna get me another job, l'm gonna start saving some money, and you're a dead man! You better hope l can't get no bullets on layaway.'' So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you won't have to go to no doctor
to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back. ''l believe you got my property.''

Smelting bullets doesn't take much, a smithing level of 54 should do it.

Its stupid how weed and other drugs are illegal yet guns and bullet aren't.

8 million guns sold each year, USA public make up 50% of those sales.


Canada: You can smoke weed but you can't buy gun.
USA: You can buy gun but you can't smoke weed.

How many people have actually defended themselves? I am going to ballpark under 5% of the population who owns a gun actually puts it to good use.

Ps: I live in chicago, where no one owns a gun legally besides those "hunters".

Had there been 1 CCW at the Aurora theater, 5 minutes from where I live, things would have played out differently. I am a qualified expert marksman with the USAF and after what happened I decided to purchase my own sidearm. Obviously with the hope that I never have to use it. I am also getting my CCW this month.


SURVEILLANCE VID SHOWS 71-YEAR-OLD CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER OPENING FIRE ON WOULD-BE ROBBERS

Caution CCT Video does show some one being shot. There is NO blood and they do NOT die.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/

From: R4nd0m
How many people have actually defended themselves? I am going to ballpark under 5% of the population who owns a gun actually puts it to good use.

Ps: I live in chicago, where no one owns a gun legally besides those "hunters".

Well I live in New Hampshire so kind of everyone here owns a gun or knows someone who does…. Guns brought up this great land. I dont like the idea of hidden gun carrying…. I want to know who is carrying around me :p

A lot of people around me shoot deer and turkey etc. Me and my cousins shoot at targets etc for fun…… But that is because my grandparents own over 100 acres so we have plenty of space. GL outlawing guns you will have to take mine from me ;)

Crazy people will find ways of getting guns so better some crazy people dont aswell. Plus if the government becomes corrupt the people may have to have a revolution like the first one ;) probably wont happen just they wouldn't outlaw guns they would just increase prices on things which is really pointless because the people that shoot guns alot will spend a lot while the crazy people only need to but a gun and one bullet to kill someone. GF fail government laws:duh:

From: R4nd0m
How many people have actually defended themselves? I am going to ballpark under 5% of the population who owns a gun actually puts it to good use.

Ps: I live in chicago, where no one owns a gun legally besides those "hunters".

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year – or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year

These statistics are obviously old, but it goes to show that guns are used in self defense a whole lot more than anyone realizes. It's just when someone uses a gun in self defense it doesn't make the news. Like when the criminal, from the article that I posted, walked into a church, killed someone, and then was killed by a legal gun carrying citizen didn't make the news. That event also happened in Aurora earlier this year.

If in a situation like the Batman opening occurs and nobody is prepared to use their gun for self-defence then the self-defence argument is irrelevant.

The laws clearly need to be changed for who can and how can you apply for a gun.
Use - Will you be hunting, farming, or defending yourself? (why else does a citizen need a gun?).
Ability - Can you actually use the killing machine we are about to hand to you? Are you able to use it appropriately (i.e. know when and how to shoot-to-kill or shoot-to-maim). Will you actually use this gun for the purpose you are declaring?
Appropriate - Is the gun you are requesting a license appropriate for your purposes?
Mental ability - Are you mentally stable, do you have any legal or other background that may put you in an 'at risk' category if we hand you a firearm?

In addition to needing to fill those criteria, are you able to secure your firearm both when at home or while you are concealing it in public. You are the one authorised to hold and use this weapon. Nobody else. Therefore you are the only one who may access it at any time.

You may deem your 'if bad people can obtain a gun illegally and shoot at us, we should be able to legally obtain one so we can shoot back' argument valid. But it's not. Bad people will always find a means to obtain the necessary tools to do bad things. But as proven in the US(don't mean to single you out, but c'mon guys I really only hear about this stuff over there) and I'm sure other countries with laws that allow people to carry firearms, that people simply do not use their personal weapons for self-defence.

You pay taxes, which in turn pay wages for the police men and women of your area to serve and protect you. If you genuinely feel you should have the right to hold a piece of metal in your hands that can end a person's life, whether that be of a child, man, woman or elder in the name of self-defence then you must recieve the same training as those police men and women before you may hold that piece of metal.

This is not really practical, and sure you may have grown up in generations of family members who can teach you how to shoot any gun better than a person who needs to for a living. But then this would discourage and disable many people from acquiring legally attained weapons and using them to commit crimes.

While it is still possible for people to go out and purchase these things on black-markets, there is no way that can be stopped. Anywhere in the world, for as long as the technology is available to create these weapons, there will be an illegal market for them.

From: Overtime

Thread closed.

well nad people will kill easer withh a full automatic asoult riffle that blows a head and part of the torso with one bullet, than with a big stone. just saying.

have someone ever saw or hear about someone using a ffull auto wep for protection?
how many of us have hear about massacres with fully autos\\matics.?

From: eduardo230
well nad people will kill easer withh a full automatic asoult riffle that blows a head and part of the torso with one bullet, than with a big stone. just saying.

have someone ever saw or hear about someone using a ffull auto wep for protection?
how many of us have hear about massacres with fully autos\\matics.?

When did someone use a fully automatic assault rifle recently? Everyone does realize that the AR-15 that was used in the Aurora,Colorado theater shooting was semi-automatic, right?

From: alevere4
When did someone use a fully automatic assault rifle recently? Everyone does realize that the AR-15 that was used in the Aurora,Colorado theater shooting was semi-automatic, right?

im not talking about colorado, im talking about general. have you ever heard of someone using a war weapon to protect him? (no in a war situation)

and in how many masacres coused by civilians war wepons are involucrated?

From: Shay
Smelting bullets doesn't take much, a smithing level of 54 should do it.

Well, I must say, the $5000 bullet sure would force me to make more of my own lead ammunition, which might lead to more cancers because of lead, sooooo we should outlaw everything that might be dangerous.

E: Class three weapons are EXTREMELY expensive, m60's can cost as much as a house and am m14 could cost as much as a nice car.

I just noticed this thread, but I already had my conversation with Kyle
Via pm, enjoyed talking with him! This will
Be the last response to this thread by myself
Though, as I get too angry from ignorant posts.

From: R4nd0m
How many people have actually defended themselves? I am going to ballpark under 5% of the population who owns a gun actually puts it to good use.

Ps: I live in chicago, where no one owns a gun legally besides those "hunters".

I live just south of you in rural Illinois. And I don't exactly see your point. I assume by saying "only 5% of people put it to good use" you mean people shouldn't have it, they don't use it. That logic makes no sense. People drive cars daily, and they have a seatbelt for when they get in an accident. With your logic, since only maybe 5% of people put it to good use (when they are in accidents) , should we just go ahead and get rid of them?

What I'm getting at is your example of maybe 5% of people put their guns to use isn't fair - they aren't being threatened on a daily basis to have to defend themselves, but when they are then they'll have it.

From: Godric
Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost $5,000. Because if a bullet cost $5,000, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders. That'd be it. Every time someone gets shot, people will be like, ''Damn, he must have did something. S**t, they put $20,000 worth of bullets in his ass.'' People would think before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost $5,000. ''Man, l would blow your f**king head off, if l could afford it. l'm gonna get me another job, l'm gonna start saving some money, and you're a dead man! You better hope l can't get no bullets on layaway.'' So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you won't have to go to no doctor
to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back. ''l believe you got my property.''

I assume this is a troll post, since obviously ammo can be easily made no matter the price put on anything. Don't make me go on, it's too ridiculous.

Putting all politics and statistics aside, it comes down to two points for me:

1. I want to be able to protect my family if somebody is breaking in.
2. Professional criminals love and will always vote for gun control, because laws are BS to them anyway.

Also a cool wiki link to a county where gun ownership is mandatory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

From: Luke L

I live just south of you in rural Illinois. And I don't exactly see your point. I assume by saying "only 5% of people put it to good use" you mean people shouldn't have it, they don't use it. That logic makes no sense. People drive cars daily, and they have a seatbelt for when they get in an accident. With your logic, since only maybe 5% of people put it to good use (when they are in accidents) , should we just go ahead and get rid of them?

What I'm getting at is your example of maybe 5% of people put their guns to use isn't fair - they aren't being threatened on a daily basis to have to defend themselves, but when they are then they'll have it.

No my point is even if people have it, people won't use it. Seat-belts are used regardless if you wanted it to work or if you didn't it will. Guns must be shot, and it may be different in other area's but most people talk a big talk but don't actually have the nerve to shoot unless drunk or in "rampage" mode. (No, not saying all gun owners are like that.. but here that is how it works, people buy their guns legally then end up killing someone whether it be their child taking the gun and accidentally shooting or them messing up in a drunken rage)

To be very honest, what angers me most is the Mexican Drug Cartel. They get their guns from America!
In mexico getting a gun is hard because of such strict gun control laws, but all they have to do is make it to Texas and buy them legally/illegally (The reason we have such a surplus of guns though is because citizens must have them for reasons unknown to me… Things like you all described just don't happen where I am from) I feel like a bat would be just as effective in terms of scaring someone.

lol was lookin on msn see something about that James Holmes guy and i found this about gun laws. OBAMA SAYS CHANGE! \/(^.^)\/

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/obama-calls-for-changes-to-us-gun-laws-1
heres a little more on the subject
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-calls-for-consensus-on-violence-problem-romney-says-guns-in-attack-obtained-illegally/2012/07/25/gJQAqt2AAX_story.html

From: R4nd0m
No my point is even if people have it, people won't use it. Seat-belts are used regardless if you wanted it to work or if you didn't it will. Guns must be shot, and it may be different in other area's but most people talk a big talk but don't actually have the nerve to shoot unless drunk or in "rampage" mode. (No, not saying all gun owners are like that.. but here that is how it works, people buy their guns legally then end up killing someone whether it be their child taking the gun and accidentally shooting or them messing up in a drunken rage)

Oh I understand what your saying. Then you'd probably agree with the conclusion that me and Kyle came to - America doesn't need more gun restriction laws, it needs more laws that teach safety, use, maintenance, etc. Teach them the skills so they have the ability to use a gun when need be, and enough leadership skills to be able to stay calm under pressure. He suggested something like a "gun training school" - which I agree with. Knowledge is power, and America needs more of it.

edit: and although I said I wouldn't reply to this thread anymore, I felt R4ndom deserved a reply as I consider him an intellectual.

From: Shay
Smelting bullets doesn't take much, a smithing level of 54 should do it.

It should be lvl 120 then! :spot:

Australian blog in reference to US gun laws and the Colorado incident.

Don't take this as gospel or as my whole-hearted opinion. But from our standpoint on the other side of the world where these type of crimes aren't committed nearly as frequently you can see why we might take this position.

"Change will come the moment the US government realise that gun ownership should be treated as a privilege, not a right; just don’t expect it to be anytime soon."
This statement however, I agree with entirely. You should not have the right to bear arms, it should be a privilege earned and worked hard for.

I'd feel safer in an unarmed crowd with a crazy gunman, than in a crowd full of rednecks, that barely knows how to operate their gun, with a crazy gunman.

The vast majority of legal gun owners do not go on shooting rampages. The vast majority of people who drive cars do not plow though crowds of pedestrians. The vast majority of people who buy gasoline do not use it to make explosives.

Laws infringing on individual liberty should not be made in fearful response to the rare actions of deranged individuals.

Motor vehicles and gasoline are necessary parts of modern-day life for those living in developed countries. Their sole ability is not to cause harm but they can bring good and convenience to people's lives. I don't see the convenience being brought about by people owning guns.

Also, car ownership and ability to use one is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege earned through extensive training.

From: putonajonny
Here in the UK the problem is knives not guns, I heard some shocking statistic that 70% of people stabbed are done so with their own weapon, people use them more for defence than offence, then it backfires…

That doesn't mean that with guns there would be less killings, does it? That said, knives are not half as dangerous as bullets from a gun. Please don't confuse them. Don't count it all as ``just a*weapon''. My fists are a weapon too, just less effective.

There are several inherent flaws in giving everyone a gun. I don't really want to argue much about this as I know how Americans think about this.

I think you can see guns for everyone as ``Fighting fire with fire''. I also don't accept the arguments that some people have effectively defended themselves against criminals with a gun. Over here in the Netherlands it's actually rare for a criminal to have a gun at all. We have far less homicides, far less shooting (all percentage wise) and no one here except the police carries a gun. (And even they often don't carry a gun)

Americans can argue in favour of guns all they want, I don't see gun regulation in America changing for the better in the next hundred years, but they're plain wrong when it comes to safety. It may not feel like that to them, but it's simply a fact.

E: I don't think particular events like the shootings in the movie theater are really related much to gun control, although I must say I was quite shocked the weapons sales over there weren't even registered to a person. Although one could say this kind of shootings happen everywhere else in the world, I think the chances are much slimmer and it takes much more effort. The extra efforts make a difference.

From: P1ng
Motor vehicles and gasoline are necessary parts of modern-day life for those living in developed countries. Their sole ability is not to cause harm but they can bring good and convenience to people's lives. I don't see the convenience being brought about by people owning guns.

Also, car ownership and ability to use one is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege earned through extensive training.

Similarly, guns are still used in many rural areas for hunting, especially Appalachia. But the utility of the items isn't what is being brought into question, it is the validity of their removal when their unintended use (killing people) is in the vast minority of their usage, very similar to the examples I gave. It is simply the case that gun crimes are grossly overrepresented in news.

Also, the driving test is anything but extensive…

From: eska
Shay I am dispointed. I would have expected that a troll like you would've been able to spot an obvious troll post. You have failed me. :(

I took one look and was like "lul troll" and passed on, but you seem to have done a good job stirring the pot :)
You have done well, fellow troll.

From: Luke L
Oh I understand what your saying. Then you'd probably agree with the conclusion that me and Kyle came to - America doesn't need more gun restriction laws, it needs more laws that teach safety, use, maintenance, etc. Teach them the skills so they have the ability to use a gun when need be, and enough leadership skills to be able to stay calm under pressure. He suggested something like a "gun training school" - which I agree with. Knowledge is power, and America needs more of it.

edit: and although I said I wouldn't reply to this thread anymore, I felt R4ndom deserved a reply as I consider him an intellectual.

Yes, exactly!
Gun training or classes would be great as a requirement to get the gun in the first place.

From: R0b0t1
Similarly, guns are still used in many rural areas for hunting

You soo need a pistol or a ak47 to hunt down a deer.

From: eska
You soo need a pistol or a ak47 to hunt down a deer.

No, but I like to use my pistol and AK47 to shoot three gun competitions and IDPA.

From: eska
You soo need a pistol or a ak47 to hunt down a deer.

Interestingly enough, you need a pistol for boar hunting. Higher caliber rifles, usually coming in semi-automatic unless (highly) scoped, are used for caribou and something else I can't remember. An AK47 would probably never be necessary for anything, but fuck bears.

The question here is the wrong one. After a shooting everyone always starts talking about the state of gun control in America, when they should be talking about the state of mental health care.

From: R0b0t1

The question here is the wrong one. After a shooting everyone always starts talking about the state of gun control in America, when they should be talking about the state of mental health care.

+1.

Saw a bumper sticker on a truck today, it read:

"Heavily armed, easily pissed"

Very scary thought.

From: R0b0t1
The question here is the wrong one. After a shooting everyone always starts talking about the state of gun control in America, when they should be talking about the state of mental health care.

I presume because they've done their homework and would like to prevent further shootings rather than shoving the problem into another branch.

From: Kyle Undefined
Saw a bumper sticker on a truck today, it read:

"Heavily armed, easily pissed"

Very scary thought.

I'm guessing you didn't f*ck with them?

Well, they had a ton of "extreme right wing" stickers as well as that one. It's just a scary thought that someone could be "heavily" armed and just snap.

I know it is in the constitution but everyone having the "right to bare arms" in the USA is pretty scary. All it takes is one nutter :cartman:

I skipped the second half of the thread.

The batman shooter had full body armor and a ballistic helmet. It is very unlikely that anybody with a concealed weapons permit would have been carrying a gun capable of defeating his armor.
Beyond that, notice that he had several automatic weapons and smoke grenades. Are you telling me that in a crowded, dark movie theater filled with smoke and random gunshots, you're going to pull out a hand gun and blast this guy down with a headshot between his helmet and body armor? And while doing so, you aren't going to blast away a couple of innocents?
Ah yes the body armor, how was it rated? Unless you're packing a deagle or something else of an insane caliber, you're not penetrating it.

I laugh at NRA nutjobs:
"Luke O’Dell of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Colorado group on the other side of the debate over gun control, took a nearly opposite view [of Mayor Bloomberg]. 'Potentially, if there had been a law-abiding citizen who had been able to carry in the theater, it’s possible the death toll would have been less.'"
–

That being said, a reasonable gun control strategy is necessary. There is no reason why a guy should be able to purchase automatics and the insane amounts of ammunition he had without a waiting period and extensive checks. Of course citizens should be allowed to own handguns for self defense or weapons for hunting - but these should be restricted and monitored. Waiting periods are sensible, as are number limits on ownership. Armor piercing bullets are needless as well.

That is my opinion on gun control.

From: daemon
I skipped the second half of the thread.

The batman shooter had full body armor and a ballistic helmet. It is very unlikely that anybody with a concealed weapons permit would have been carrying a gun capable of defeating his armor.
Beyond that, notice that he had several automatic weapons and smoke grenades. Are you telling me that in a crowded, dark movie theater filled with smoke and random gunshots, you're going to pull out a hand gun and blast this guy down with a headshot between his helmet and body armor? And while doing so, you aren't going to blast away a couple of innocents?
Ah yes the body armor, how was it rated? Unless you're packing a deagle or something else of an insane caliber, you're not penetrating it.

I laugh at NRA nutjobs:
"Luke O’Dell of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Colorado group on the other side of the debate over gun control, took a nearly opposite view [of Mayor Bloomberg]. 'Potentially, if there had been a law-abiding citizen who had been able to carry in the theater, it’s possible the death toll would have been less.'"
–

That being said, a reasonable gun control strategy is necessary. There is no reason why a guy should be able to purchase automatics and the insane amounts of ammunition he had without a waiting period and extensive checks. Of course citizens should be allowed to own handguns for self defense or weapons for hunting - but these should be restricted and monitored. Waiting periods are sensible, as are number limits on ownership. Armor piercing bullets are needless as well.

He did not have several automatic weapons. In fact, he had no automatic weapons.

From: iBlank
He did not have several automatic weapons. In fact, he had no automatic weapons.

http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/20/james-holmes-colorado-shooting-guns-semi-automatic-weapon/

okay you're right, but don't ignore the rest of the post