Guns

GTA Poker

Milo;324077 wroteBullets don't kill people . . . hell, bullets in guns don't even kill people. Now, bullets leaving guns at brake muzzle velocity? Those will do some damage.

physics kills people

reibs

GTA Poker;324082 wrotephysics kills people

Aliens?

literation

reibs;324083 wroteAliens?

No GTA had it:

Cartman vs. psychics - YouTube

Milo

I guess that I just believe that it is always better to err on the side of individual liberty and freedom, rather than state control and dominance. The overwhelming majority of legally purchased firearms never end up used in the commission of a crime, so I see no reason for a ban. But what the hell do I know? I think the RIDE program is a waste of money, too.

DrTyore

I'd like to thank / acknowledge the following:

- Myself for being right, and having it proven repeatedly throughout the week. Hopefully it'll stop now though.

- Hellmuth's Mole for standing on the side of reason

- GTA Poker for proving that most CPF'ers aren't actually reading the material in posts, but just waiting for the first thing they can latch onto to use in an attempt at humour.

Mark

Milo

DrTyore;324151 wroteI'd like to thank / acknowledge the following:

- Myself for being right, and having it proven repeatedly throughout the week.

Self-delusion is better than nothing, I guess . . . at least you're happy.

Hellmuth's Mole

A simple quote from an op ed I just read.

"That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended."

Hellmuth's Mole

reibs;324081 wroteThis thread makes my head hurt...

Cus I think I agree with Milo's opinion for once.....:mad:

philliivey likes this

And with that, I will sleep better tonight.

800OVER

Higher gun ownership rates equals more deaths. All you need to know.

New Trajectory: Important Data Trends the NRA Doesn't Want You To Know

800OVER

Milo;324071 wroteMole, I would like you to do a little research. Look up how "easy" it is for Joe citizen to acquire a RPAL in this country. Then look up the restrictions that go into how a handgun must be stored, the restrictions on how it must be transported, etc.

As I said before, handguns in this country are effectively banned already, and have been since before WW2. My opposition to an outright ban stems from the fact that I can state without fear of contradiction that such a ban would have virtually zero impact on gun crime in this country. So please, in the spirit of "open-mindedness", do the research and get back to me . . . until then, I am pretty much finished.

Would you believe that an outright ban on Handgun ownership in the US would reduce Canadian illegal handgun availability? A large portion of guns used in crimes in Canada are sourced in the US.

US guns fuel Canada and Mexico crimes, UK gun crime remains rare

800OVER

Hellmuth's Mole;324157 wroteA simple quote from an op ed I just read.

"That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended."

And Colorado has the most relaxed laws for gun ownership and concealment. People love to mention how people need to be allowed to have guns to protect themselves. It almost never happens.

SuperNed

Hellmuth's Mole;324157 wroteIn theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended."

Sadly in Texas I doubt it would have turned out even close to as bloody...although Holmes would probably be a distant memory.....

Hellmuth's Mole

SuperNed;324162 wroteSadly in Texas I doubt it would have turned out even close to as bloody...although Holmes would probably be a distant memory.....

*sigh* it has been shown time after time that talk of self defense is just that. First instincts are to flee and protect under cover. Hindsight talk of "well I would have just pulled out my (insert name of pens enhancing weapon here) and blown his head off" is based 99% on total bull shit.

SuperNed

Hellmuth's Mole;324164 wrote*sigh* it has been shown time after time that talk of self defense is just that. First instincts are to flee and protect under cover. Hindsight talk of "well I would have just pulled out my (insert name of pens enhancing weapon here) and blown his head off" is based 99% on total bull shit.

*sigh*....have you lived in Texas?

800OVER

SuperNed;324162 wroteSadly in Texas I doubt it would have turned out even close to as bloody...although Holmes would probably be a distant memory.....

Why would you think this? You have nothing to back this up. Where do you come up with this assumption? The laws in Colorado allow concealed weapons in public places. No one in the theatre had a gun. You think the average movie goer in Texas is armed? Please.

800OVER

Colorado owns more guns per capita then Texas:
States with the most guns - The Daily Beast

What's funny Ned is that you think Texan's would be more likely to have prevented this.....but in fact maybe Colorado is more likely to have such a tragedy is because they have more guns. More guns does not equal more safety.

GTA Poker

I like how superneds arguments are all based on complete inaccuracies and zero facts....good stuff

BrennerM

SuperNed;324167 wrote*sigh*....have you lived in Texas?

So a guy in full body armour with a gas mask throws tear gas into a theater and then comes in with a gas mask and an AK-47, firing about a shot per second, and you are going to pull out your handgun with people running, diving, and screaming all around you and put a bullet in the guy's head?

Much more likely scenarios IMO:
- the shooter sees you and hits you with about 4 bullets before you can even get one shot off
- you hit someone who runs between you and the shooter
- with tear gas in your eyes you can't see the shooter well enough to take aim at his head

I don't care if Americans want small handguns in their home to defend themselves (or have their kids shoot them by accident) but AK-47 assault rifles are simply not necessary for any non-military situation. I guarantee you the American founding fathers did not anticipate AK-47s when they wrote the second amendment. At that time they had crappy guns that could barely hit a house from 100 yards away and probably took minutes to reload.

SuperNed

BrennerM;324180 wroteSo a guy in full body armour with a gas mask throws tear gas into a theater and then comes in with a gas mask and an AK-47, firing about a shot per second, and you are going to pull out your handgun with people running, diving, and screaming all around you and put a bullet in the guy's head?

Much more likely scenarios IMO:
- the shooter sees you and hits you with about 4 bullets before you can even get one shot off
- you hit someone who runs between you and the shooter
- with tear gas in your eyes you can't see the shooter well enough to take aim at his head

I don't care if Americans want small handguns in their home to defend themselves (or have their kids shoot them by accident) but AK-47 assault rifles are simply not necessary for any non-military situation. I guarantee you the American founding fathers did not anticipate AK-47s when they wrote the second amendment. At that time they had crappy guns that could barely hit a house from 100 yards away and probably took minutes to reload.

Granted, the body armour would have probably made it a non issue. Better outlaw that too :D

SuperNed

GTA Poker;324175 wroteI like how superneds arguments are all based on complete inaccuracies and zero facts....good stuff

Oh GTA Poker....please stop trying to make me feel bad....I respect your opinion more than you know and it really hurts :)

But since you do seem to like to get involved, but offer not even an arguement .... by all means....answer this one that nobody seemed to want to touch. Somehow I'll guess you'll just avoid directly answering....

"Why wouldn't they [everyday citizens]have the right? No matter what happens, the 'bad guys' are going to be able to get/make/blackmarket guns....or some sort of similar weapon. This isn't make believe where weapons of this type can just disappear. I could make a basic gun on a metal lathe in a few hours. Why in your arguement should the law abiding citizens not be able to get guns to protect themselves, hunt etc, but the criminals still will? And yes, I agree there should be stricter laws in the U.S. regarding buying firearms...for the record."

« Previous Page Next Page »