rotard wrote: The problem with these kinds of laws is that the type of person that is going into a movie theater to kill people isn't interested in any laws.
Not only that, but the dumbass could have used explosives and not only caused more mayhem, but he'd also have been more true to the Joker.
I'm tellin' ya. Paid to do it by the gun industry.
My hat's itchy, anyone know where to get hypoallergenic tinfoil?
Conquest351 wrote: In reply to PHeller: So you're going to stick someone up at a convenience store with a Browning M2? Ok. Have fun with that. That argument is absolutely as absurd as thinking me, Brian, can outgun the US army.
But if we completely deregulated the sale of guns and ammunition, why wouldnt people grab the biggest gun they could find?
Again, in a world like that, we'd all have to wear body armor or just be comfortable with facing death daily.
PHeller wrote: just be comfortable with facing death daily.
Drive much?
pres589 wrote: Why would he go with a semi-auto when full auto would have been even more destructive?
I'm not sure it would have been.
Why would he use an AR-15 at all for close range work when he had a shotgun and a pistol? Because he's a dumbass, that's why, and not just for that reason.
James Holmes was an awkward anti-social dude who barely spoke with even his closest friends.
You can bet that he would have had a hard time getting ahold of a gun on the black market.
If you don't agree with this logic, why can't mentally unstable people get guns? They can't go to their local gun store and buy one...but we still don't hear about institutionalized people shooting up the looney bin? Why? Because they don't have the social skills to acquire a gun illegally.
Gangsters, thugs, and dealers get their guns because they are already doing business successfully. They have social skills (at least within their ranks), and they have a network that allows them to easily acquire a gun. Ok, so maybe some gang members steal guns, but then the kids wielding those guns arent the types to go postal at a movie theatre. There gonna go shoot up the other gangster who stole their girlfriend. That stuff will always happen, we can't do anything about that.
This is more about awkward shy geeky kid going online and buying himself an arsenal.
Like I said before, if James Holmes attempted to buy a gun on the black market he would've been laughed at and robbed.
Neal Boortz's new proposed gun law: US Citizens are prohibited from buying any weapons more efficient at killing than the ones the ATF sold to Mexican drug cartels.
IMHO the second amendment exist to protect us from a corrupt government. If the population is at somewhat armed what does the government have to be scared of?
I'm not saying bans guns. I'm not saying ban high capacity mags. I'm saying the idea that you can buy mags online, thousands of rounds of ammunition online, and purchase ANY guns without a reference is ridiculous.
The lunatics who commit these unique crimes (school shooting, mall shootings, etc) are anti-social, awkward, neurotic, laughable obsessions and ridiculous motives.
Why can't we just say "high capacity mags must be under the ownership of gun clubs, and may not leave premise accept under circumstance of martial law". That would make more people be members of gun clubs, and put the tracking of weapons, ammunition, magazines, etc up to those guns clubs. If a club cannot document where the .50 cal went, they will be facing some serious fines.
Another advantage to the community gun club having sole ownership of high powered weapons, ammunition and magazines would mean that in order for someone to use those weapons, they'd have to go through the gun club. That means that people like James Holmes would have raised some flags early on.
pres589 wrote: In reply to rotard: So let me get this straight. The argument is "they'll just go for illegal guns", and when someone asks why the person in question didn't go ahead and do that this time (I mean, the guy had four guns on him / in the car, right?), I get told my question is a fallacy? And then told I need to study sarcasm. It's cute but you're still avoiding the question. If his goal was mass destruction, and you're saying the "next guy" will go for illegal guns, why didn't this guy? I have a one-word theory; "convenience".
Ever shot a full auto weapon? I have. You really can't control it and keep it on target. If his intention was to just let a lot of rounds loose and not hit anythign, than a full-auto would be perfect. If his intention was to kill and maim as many as possible, a semi auto is more capable and more manageable. Plus, it will burn through his limited supply of ammo slower so he can kill/maim more.
I know reality doesn't play a part in your theory, so I apologize for interupting your fantasy.
PHeller wrote: I'm not saying bans guns. I'm not saying ban high capacity mags. I'm saying the idea that you can buy mags online, thousands of rounds of ammunition online, and purchase ANY guns without a reference is ridiculous. The lunatics who commit these unique crimes (school shooting, mall shootings, etc) are anti-social, awkward, neurotic, laughable obsessions and ridiculous motives. Why can't we just say "high capacity mags must be under the ownership of gun clubs, and may not leave premise accept under circumstance of martial law". That would make more people be members of gun clubs, and put the tracking of weapons, ammunition, magazines, etc up to those guns clubs. If a club cannot document where the .50 cal went, they will be facing some serious fines.
Have you purchased a firearm?
Bob, no I have not. I have several friends who have CCPs, I have had the privilege of firing a full auto AR15, AK, and MP5 at a club demonstration day. I don't feel the need to own a gun, aside from the hand me downs from family members.
In reply to PHeller:
Mags yes, bullets, yes, guns? berkeley no. The same rules apply to online purchases from gun shops as ones that take place in gun shops. And again, what part of being able to buy tools online is ridiculous?
The rest of your post is retarded nonsense. You seem to have no real concept of what high powered means. Your idea basically means everyones hunting rifles, shotguns, pistols with a caliber starting in at least .4 would be locked up and useless for anything. That's berkeleying brilliant right there.
Sorry, should I have specified "guns designed and built for military groups within the last 50 years."
That would allow you most hunting guns and most common handguns.
I honest don't give a flip if my neighbor owns a freakin arsenal. What I worry about is when my neighbor owns an arsenal, has paranoia, and gets violent on regular occasion. Oh yea, he's been really depressed lately and has been watching Rambo movies non-stop.
Unfortunately, in our current climate, law enforcement can't do anything about my very dangerous neighbor.
When I read this:
pres589 wrote: That's exactly the kind of response that earns people arguing against limiting the capacity of magazines the label of "gun nut". It's the talk of cult members, not rational individuals hoping for a discussion about a serious issue.
What I really saw was:
pres589 wrote: I invite everyone to a debate. Feel free to enter into a discussion about gun control with me at any time. *WARNING: I reserve the right to brow beat and publicly laud anyone who disagrees with me , and label them a cultist hate monger...CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED* Who's first? anyone? ANYONE? Bueller?
pres589 wrote: It's cute but you're still avoiding the question. If his goal was mass destruction, and you're saying the "next guy" will go for illegal guns, why didn't this guy? I have a one-word theory; "convenience".
Because he wasn't a felon.....it is impossible to tell when he became mentally disturbed enough to do this.
Once again, the person is the problem. He must have passed every background check to have purchased them, just like any other non-felon(Edit:add non-drug/domestic misdemenors to that) American. Convenience is not the correct word here, I can always call up people I know who are shady as hell and buy Glock handguns all day for $1-200 a pop, no questions asked, no questions answered as to where they came from.......thats alot easier and cheaper than going to the shop, filling out legal paperwork, waiting a little or a lot(up to a few days) for the background check, and pay alot more for something.
I buy predominantly new due to not wanting any "unknown history" that could lead to trouble down the road.
In reply to PHeller:
So the M16 is off limits but the AR15 is good under your idea. Good to know I guess.
PHeller wrote: Sorry, should I have specified "guns designed and built for military groups within the last 50 years."
So you can't buy a bolt action Mosin Nagent but you can buy plenty of other semi-auto shotguns and rifles? That makes sense.
Hey hey hey now, notice he had a 100 round magazine and it jammed so he had to switch away from the semi-auto rifle. So I say, the only magazines available should be the 100-round jam-prone ones! That way nobody can shoot more than a round or two before having to stop and un-jam their magazine.
Ok, so I'm not expert, but you've got to throw out some ideas that don't revolve around "let anyone have a gun" and "wear body armor daily".
PHeller wrote: Sorry, should I have specified "guns designed and built for military groups within the last 50 years."
You realize the AK-47 was designed more than 50 years ago, right?
PHeller wrote: Ok, so I'm not expert, but you've got to throw out some ideas that don't revolve around "let anyone have a gun" and "wear body armor daily".
Why? Leave it the way it is.
PHeller wrote: Ok, so I'm not expert, but you've got to throw out some ideas that don't revolve around "let anyone have a gun".
Sorry bubba, but that's called the 2nd Amendment, and it's a berkeleying Constitutional Right. If you don't like it, move.
In reply to 4cylndrfury:
If you want to engage in an intellectually dishonest comparison where sticks equal guns carrying over ten rounds in the magazine (like the person I addressed with that bit of text was doing), be my guest, but don't be surprised if I call a spade a spade. That you're this excitable makes me wonder what kind of logical grounding you base your opinions on.
In reply to Javelin:
Javelin is in a militia.
In reply to Stance:
The rational is, cars aren't really designed to kill, where as with guns killing is definitely an on-label purpose. I'm saying that comparing the two... do you really want people carrying white phosphorus bombs or hand grenades? The comparison should probably be between like-purposed devices.
pres589 wrote: "knives, cars, sticks, bats"... yeah, a lot of people have murdered others in rapid succession with a stick. That's exactly the kind of response that earns people arguing against limiting the capacity of magazines the label of "gun nut". It's the talk of cult members, not rational individuals hoping for a discussion about a serious issue.
The answer to this question is simple......why dick around with guns when you can take fertilizer and blow the front of a concrete building off? THAT is how to kill many people at once easily.
If you don't comprehend that reference, please do google Timothy McVeigh.....who WAS berkeleyING NUTS!!!!!!
That point stated, and proven to be superior to firearms at easilly killing people, will you now support the crusade to ban all agricultural fertilizers? Please tell me you have realized how pointless your arguement is by now. It is the same as everything else. There are good people, and then there are bad people. The bad will utilize anything possible to steal or harm others.......including completely legal materials.
Would restricted magazine capacity restrictions have slowed the Aurora mess down? Probably not.
Can you tell that this arguement is deeply seeded on both sides, predominately argued by those who do and don't enjoy sports & target shooting or hunting?
You'll need to log in to post.
