Shooting in Batman premiere?

[Drachen]

Westboro Baptist Church Threatens To 'Super Picket' Aurora Prayer Vigil For Batman Shooting Victims

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/westboro-baptist-church-aurora-shooting-vigil_n_1693375.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

This reminds me of something I saw (can't remember where). It said "Live your life so that Westboro wants to picket your funeral".

[ALVAREZ6]

So you are saying just less than 2/3 of all homicides are committed WITH guns?

Explain the logic you are using when you are telling yourself that this isn't a gun issue.

Yeah 2/3 is pretty fucking significant.

[Heath Ledger]

For the year 2009 Homicide rates were at their lowest since 1964.

[Heath Ledger]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/394681_501701893179393_701526940_n.jpg

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17tpvhjpzi8n7png/xlarge.png

[Darth_Pelican]

Dude looks stoned. He has probably spent every minute since he was arrested in an interrogation room.

[leemajors]

he looks like someone who knows everyone in that prison would love to shank him.

[Darth_Pelican]

:lol his attorney is like FML

[Heath Ledger]

He was dozing off in the court room, apparently hes on some pretty heavy meds

[this or that?]

He don't deserve any attention.

[Heath Ledger]

He doesn't deserve it but boy is he gonna get it.

[VBM]

D'Brickashaw ‏@DragonflyJonez
Media Spin 101: Middle Eastern killers are terrorists. Black killers are thugs. White killers have mental illness.
Retweeted by THE HANDS OF ZEUS

[Clipper Nation]

I dont think there are any facts that would change your mind because youre an ideologue.

Irony, tbh....

[cantthinkofanything]

D'Brickashaw ‏@DragonflyJonez
Media Spin 101: Middle Eastern killers are terrorists. Black killers are thugs. White killers have mental illness.
Retweeted by THE HANDS OF ZEUS

^ are you doubting this? For the most part, it seems true.

[Clipper Nation]

Never mind

[cantthinkofanything]

Never mind

sorry...I was trying to refer to the post above yours but your post beat mine. I ended up adding the quote.

[VBM]

^ are you doubting this? For the most part, it seems true.

I agree with it. :downspin: at its finest.

[cantthinkofanything]

I agree with it. :downspin: at its finest.

you don't see the difference between what the guy did at Batman and a Muslim suicide bomber? Or a black gangbanger?

From what's been released so far, it doesn't seem like he shot up the theater for some religious reason. Or for financial gain. Everything points to him being truly psychotic.

[VBM]

you don't see the difference between what the guy did at Batman and a Muslim suicide bomber? Or a black gangbanger?

From what's been released so far, it doesn't seem like he shot up the theater for some religious reason. Or for financial gain. Everything points to him being truly psychotic.

Could a religious fanatic be considered someone insane though? Religion exists everywhere, and it takes a special type of person to buy into religion to the extent they will kill over it (exceptions to this are kids who are brought up to think this way).

I think it a comment to people's initial reactions to white killers. See the dude who shot up people in Arizona and this guy. When they're mug shots came out, it wasn't "that thug" or "that terrorist," it was "that dude is psycho."

http://ll-media.tmz.com/2011/01/10/0110-jared-lee-loughner-bn-credit.jpg

http://officialmagicpg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/james-holmes-mug-shot.jpg

Maybe the minorities need to start smiling in their mugshots to get the same reaction :lol

[cantthinkofanything]

Could a religious fanatic be considered someone insane though? Religion exists everywhere, and it takes a special type of person to buy into religion to the extent they will kill over it (exceptions to this are kids who are brought up to think this way).

I think it a comment to people's initial reactions to white killers. See the dude who shot up people in Arizona and this guy. When they're mug shots came out, it wasn't "that thug" or "that terrorist," it was "that dude is psycho."

http://ll-media.tmz.com/2011/01/10/0110-jared-lee-loughner-bn-credit.jpg

http://officialmagicpg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/james-holmes-mug-shot.jpg

Maybe the minorities need to start smiling in their mugshots to get the same reaction :lol

I'm not saying that there isn't something wrong with anyone that decides to go kill someone else. But I do think there is a huge difference between this guy and a Muslim suicide bomber. And the black gangbanger.

There's a reason that stereotypes become stereotypes.

[VBM]

I'm not saying that there isn't something wrong with anyone that decides to go kill someone else. But I do think there is a huge difference between this guy and a Muslim suicide bomber.

What is the basis for your initial thought though? Did you initially feel the same about the dude in Norway who shot up the kid camp? And why is a Muslim guy willing to blow himself up not considered crazy? I think that's what he's aiming at.

[cantthinkofanything]

What is the basis for your initial thought though? Did you initially feel the same about the dude in Norway who shot up the kid camp? And why is a Muslim guy willing to blow himself up not considered crazy? I think that's what he's aiming at.

If you're talking about the initial thoughts, then I agree with you. But most of the time, when a white guy kills a bunch of people, it's not for religious reasons. And I'm not aware of many cases of a black person doing something similar as far as a mass murder.

But for the most part, I think the media quickly gets past the stereotypes and pins the murderer down for what he is.

But I think my point is that the psychology between the three types of killers we're talking about it vastly different.

[VBM]

But I think my point is that the psychology between the three types of killers we're talking about it vastly different.

I get your point. I do think we need to start factoring in political reasons (seems to apply to the Arizona dude and the Norway dude) as another motivation for such acts.

[silverblk mystix]

I get your point. I do think we need to start factoring in political reasons (seems to apply to the Arizona dude and the Norway dude) as another motivation for such acts.

What about soldiers (from any country, including ours) that kill?

They were also programmed/brainwashed to believe they were killing "for a good reason/cause."

Are they psychotic?

[Heath Ledger]

Could a religious fanatic be considered someone insane though? Religion exists everywhere, and it takes a special type of person to buy into religion to the extent they will kill over it (exceptions to this are kids who are brought up to think this way).

I think it a comment to people's initial reactions to white killers. See the dude who shot up people in Arizona and this guy. When they're mug shots came out, it wasn't "that thug" or "that terrorist," it was "that dude is psycho."

http://ll-media.tmz.com/2011/01/10/0110-jared-lee-loughner-bn-credit.jpg

http://officialmagicpg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/james-holmes-mug-shot.jpg

Maybe the minorities need to start smiling in their mugshots to get the same reaction :lol

that photo you posted of Holmes is not his mugshot...

[VBM]

What about soldiers (from any country, including ours) that kill?

They were also programmed/brainwashed to believe they were killing "for a good reason/cause."

Are they psychotic?

Nope. Psychotic/insane means shit isn't firing in the brain like it's supposed to. The Joker guy doesn't strike me as the insane type at first glance. I'm hoping we get some facts as to potential motivations soon.

[VBM]

that photo you posted of Holmes is not his mugshot...

Google lied to me then. Ain't that a mutha. Guess I should have known since his hair looks normal in that pic.

[silverblk mystix]

Nope. Psychotic/insane means shit isn't firing in the brain like it's supposed to. The Joker guy doesn't strike me as the insane type at first glance. I'm hoping we get some facts as to potential motivations soon.

Well, he appears to be trying to appear insane.

[cantthinkofanything]

Nope. Psychotic/insane means shit isn't firing in the brain like it's supposed to. The Joker guy doesn't strike me as the insane type at first glance. I'm hoping we get some facts as to potential motivations soon.


Well, he appears to be trying to appear insane.

yeah...what so far is not striking you as insane?

[VBM]

The back story. Dude was apparently solid academically, wasn't simply a hermit (even if he was considered more of a loner by some people). I want to know what changed a month ago when he dropped out of school.

Like when you hear about those murder-suicides when a guy kills his wife, kid and then himself. Many times you hear the wife was telling him she was leaving him or something like that. The guy who then does the murder-suicide isn't insane per se, but he was just so overwhelmed by an event that affected him to the core.

[cantthinkofanything]

The back story. Dude was apparently solid academically, wasn't simply a hermit (even if he was considered more of a loner by some people). I want to know what changed a month ago when he dropped out of school.

Idk. Insane doesn't mean incapable.

What's your theory?

[VBM]

Idk. Insane doesn't mean incapable.

What's your theory?

I'm thinking the pressure of med school got to him, maybe he failed something, maybe he thought his life was over. Mad at the world, says fuck it I want to be remembered for something (good or bad). Colombine was thought to be a result of bullying (and there have been some copycat plots foiled that were traced to kids hating high school). I just think slapping the insanity tag on him seems hasty at this point.

[cantthinkofanything]

I'm thinking the pressure of med school got to him, maybe he failed something, maybe he thought his life was over. Mad at the world, says fuck it I want to be remembered for something (good or bad). Colombine was thought to be a result of bullying (and there have been some copycat plots foiled that were traced to kids hating high school). I just think slapping the insanity tag on him seems hasty at this point.

Idk. I'm still waiting for the MK Ultra theory.

[Bill_Brasky]

The back story. Dude was apparently solid academically, wasn't simply a hermit (even if he was considered more of a loner by some people). I want to know what changed a month ago when he dropped out of school.

Like when you hear about those murder-suicides when a guy kills his wife, kid and then himself. Many times you hear the wife was telling him she was leaving him or something like that. The guy who then does the murder-suicide isn't insane per se, but he was just so overwhelmed by an event that affected him to the core.

Dude seems schizo.

[Heath Ledger]

Idk. I'm still waiting for the MK Ultra theory.

It's already come up..

[cantthinkofanything]

It's already come up..

believable?

[ace3g]

I just saw some report on CNN that he was facing possible academic probation in medical school, which probably had something to do with his voluntary withdraw from the school.

So going from the "top of the top" in academics to low point in such a short amount of time might have triggered something.

Here is his mugshot:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120723084633-holmes-mugshot-t1-main.jpg

[Lincoln]

I saw a video of him in court today an he looked sad as fuck...eyes all watery

[VBM]

I just saw some report on CNN that he was facing possible academic probation in medical school, which probably had something to do with his voluntary withdraw from the school.

So going from the "top of the top" in academics to low point in such a short amount of time might have triggered something.

Here is his mugshot:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120723084633-holmes-mugshot-t1-main.jpg

It doesn't get much lower than having an AdultFriendFinder account...

[mavs>spurs]

It doesn't get much lower than having an AdultFriendFinder account...

according to mannyisgod, the internet is the way to go to meet chicks :lmao

[Landon Donofag]

http://i.imgur.com/wprNx.jpg

[Lincoln]

according to mannyisgod, the internet is the way to go to meet chicks :lmao

Lol

[ChumpDumper]

Seemed to work for him in this case, but if you want to make another thread all about Manny....

[Wild Cobra]

So you are saying just less than 2/3 of all homicides are committed WITH guns?

Explain the logic you are using when you are telling yourself that this isn't a gun issue.
People will kill with the best weapon whey can get their hands on and use.

If you could somehow magically rid this nation of all guns, people would still kill. Probably in similar numbers. I personally am a fan of the crossbow.

If you only create laws that take away guns from law abiding people, then the criminals will still have guns, and the killings will likely increase.

Use a little logic.

[ace3g]

CNN is starting to look at his finances and it is possible he might have used some of his academic grant money to purchase the weapons/equipment, etc

[silverblk mystix]

Seemed to work for him in this case, but if you want to make another thread all about Manny....


Translation:

Manny is Gay supports homosexuals so I will do everything in my e-power to defend him ...

[johnsmith]

CNN is starting to look at his finances and it is possible he might have used some of his academic grant money to purchase the weapons/equipment, etc

Ban Federal Grants!!!

[ChumpDumper]

Translation:

Manny is Gay supports homosexuals so I will do everything in my e-power to defend him ...Do you have evidence to contradict my assertion that it seemed to work for him, or is it just that your ass is still red from being baited into whining in the other thread?

[DMC]

CNN is starting to look at his finances and it is possible he might have used some of his academic grant money to purchase the weapons/equipment, etc

He was there 1 year.

He got a grant.

Students often work research jobs in the labs. I know several at that campus in fact.


I pointed this out to Heath "conspiracy" Ledger when he commented on how carrot top afforded the goods.

[Edward]

CNN is starting to look at his finances and it is possible he might have used some of his academic grant money to purchase the weapons/equipment, etc

This was a government conspiracy where tax payer funds were used to arm this man!

[DMC]

This was also a hate crime. The Joker hated Batman.

[Edward]

This was also a hate crime. The Joker hated Batman.
And Batman is black!

[DMC]

Tax payer funds arm almost every thug on the street.

[silverblk mystix]

Do you have evidence to contradict my assertion that it seemed to work for him, or is it just that your ass is still red from being baited into whining in the other thread?


Are you confirming your sexual orientation or just in love with MIG?

[cantthinkofanything]

I pointed this out to Heath "conspiracy" Ledger when he commented on how carrot top afforded the goods.

Well if this was a conspiracy and somehow "they" programmed the guy and went to all the trouble of setting this all up, I'm sure they would have covered the parts about "where did he get the money".

[ChumpDumper]

Are you confirming your sexual orientation or just in love with MIG?[emoticon] You still want to know!

lol obsessed

[DMC]

Well if this was a conspiracy and somehow "they" programmed the guy and went to all the trouble of setting this all up, I'm sure they would have covered the parts about "where did he get the money".
Deus ex Machina

[cantthinkofanything]

Deus ex Machina

not only that but the whole thing magically comes together perfectly

[Blake]

If you could somehow magically rid this nation of all guns, people would still kill. Probably in similar numbers. I personally am a fan of the crossbow.

..

Use a little logic.

So logically speaking, someone with a crossbow can kill/injure 70 people in a similar manner as what happened the other night?

Doubtful.

[ace3g]

Now they are reporting there was a mixup with the statement the mother of the shooter made:


In the statement read Monday by Damiani, Arlene Holmes clarified that she had been awoken by a reporter at 5:45 a.m. on Friday, and asked if she knew anything about a shooting in Aurora. Holmes said she did not, and Arlene Holmes said the reporter asked if she was Arlene Holmes and if her son was James Holmes.

In the written statement, Arlene Holmes says that is when she responded with, “Yes, you have the right person,” referring to herself. Arlene Holmes said the reporter asked for a comment about the shooting in Aurora, but that she could not comment until she knew learned more, and if the person involved was in fact her son.

[HI-FI]

So logically speaking, someone with a crossbow can kill/injure 70 people in a similar manner as what happened the other night?

Doubtful.

this nig could
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/hawkslayer/hawkslayer8.jpg

[DMC]

So logically speaking, someone with a crossbow can kill/injure 70 people in a similar manner as what happened the other night?

Doubtful.
A Mexican in a pickup truck can kill 14.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/us/texas-truck-wreck/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Mexican are already banned. That's working great.

[ace3g]

The school is keeping very tight lipped about this guy. CNN says that all students in this PhD program are monitored and when a student decides to apply for voluntary withdraw, there is a meeting set up with the student and staff, to discuss reasons for withdraw and an attempt to motivate the student to stay and finish the program.

The school isn't saying if they had a meeting with him or if he had any noticeable change in behavior (mental or physical).

[Blake]

A Mexican in a pickup truck can kill 14.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/us/texas-truck-wreck/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Mexican are already banned. That's working great.

nearly two dozen people were packed in one ford f250.

If the killer wouldn't have had a truck, his next step would have been to assault them with a swimming pool.

/slippery slope

[da_suns_fan]

So i asked the gun advocates what it would take to change your mind? What Facts would you need to see to convince you that banning semi-automatic weapons would be a good thing.

Also, someone said "Ban guns and they'll use crossbows etc."

No one is disputing individuals will still be able to kill. But you cant cause that type of mass death/injuries with a cross bow the way you can with semi-automatics.

The only thing comparable would be a bomb.

Bombs are illegal. Wonder why.

[Clipper Nation]

Nothing will change my mind because the Constitution, historical trends, and failed attempts at federally banning other things all favor the idea that the right to bear arms is essential in a free society, tbh.....

[Clipper Nation]

nearly two dozen people were packed in one ford f250.

If the killer wouldn't have had a truck, his next step would have been to assault them with a swimming pool.

/slippery slope

/reductio ad absurdum

[da_suns_fan]

A Mexican in a pickup truck can kill 14.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/us/texas-truck-wreck/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Mexican are already banned. That's working great.

True, but that was an accident.

If someone was TRYING to kill 14, using a pickup truck would be extremely ineffective and impractical. Too many things have to go "right" for you to be successful. Mainly getting 14 people into the back of an uncovered vehicle.

You seem unable to comprehend that semi-automatic weapons make killing in masses EASY.

With guns, you dont need to get people to agree to get into your truck. You dont need any cooperation with any individual, actually. Just shoot em up.

So DMC, answer this question: SHOULD BOMBS BE LEGAL?

[da_suns_fan]

In fact, that question goes for all gun-advocates: Should bombs be legal?

What about grenades?

Missile launchers?

[Clipper Nation]

We don't have a Constitutional right to bombs, grenades, or missile launchers, tbh.... lame argument, next!

[Heath Ledger]

Too soon???

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/486404_10151112197100930_805451394_n.jpg

[da_suns_fan]

We don't have a Constitutional right to bombs, grenades, or missile launchers, tbh.... lame argument, next!

definition of arms: Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".

Bazookas arent weapons and ammunition?

Ok...what about FULLY automatic machine guns? Should those be legal?

[da_suns_fan]

Id really like DMC, _Jag, ClipperNation, and anyone else against banning semi-automatics to answer this one:

Should bombs, portable missile launchers, fully automatic machine guns, armor piercing bullets etc etc be legal?

[da_suns_fan]

We don't have a Constitutional right to bombs, grenades, or missile launchers, tbh.... lame argument, next!

btw - the argument against gun restrictions wasnt about the constitution, it was about "guns dont kill people....people kill people. If they dont have guns, they'll use something else...swords, knifes, cross-bows, bombs, swimming pools".


So dont go hiding behind the CONSTITUTION now.

[Clipper Nation]

definition of arms: Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".

Bazookas arent weapons and ammunition?

The Second Amendment only entitles us to firearms, this has been backed up by the Supreme Court....

[da_suns_fan]

The Second Amendment only entitles us to firearms, this has been backed up by the Supreme Court....

What about fully automatic machine guns?

Armor piercing bullets?

Dont chicken out!!!

Answer the question!

[Clipper Nation]

So dont go hiding behind the CONSTITUTION now.

Oh yes, that pesky Constitution with those meddlesome laws... why can't we just govern based on heat-of-the-moment emotion? :rolleyes

[da_suns_fan]

Oh yes, that pesky Constitution with those meddlesome laws... why can't we just govern based on heat-of-the-moment emotion? :rolleyes

You are chickening out. Answer the question.

Automatic machine guns. AK-47s.

Should they be LEGAL?

[Clipper Nation]

What about fully automatic machine guns?

Armor piercing bullets?

Dont chicken out!!!

Answer the question!

It depends on what voters in each state find appropriate, tbh.... I don't think any civilian needs a fully automatic machine gun, but I also disagree with the federal government barging in on what's clearly a state issue....

[stxspurs]

automatic guns are illegal.

[da_suns_fan]

Also, how come the shooter didnt use a FULLY automatic weapon?

If Gun restrictions dont work. If people can just get what they want on the black market, how come he didnt get a fully automatic weapon on the black market?

Its obvious he was trying to kill as many as possible.

[stxspurs]

maybe he tried and couldnt get one

[Clipper Nation]

Now you're just asking questions that are purposefully impossible to answer, B.... nobody will likely ever know why he didn't just get a fully-automatic machine gun, tbh.... definitely shows you've lost the argument....

[da_suns_fan]

It depends on what voters in each state find appropriate, tbh.... I don't think any civilian needs a fully automatic machine gun, but I also disagree with the federal government barging in on what's clearly a state issue....

Who are YOU to say what someone needs?!!!

Why do you think people dont need a fully automatics?

[da_suns_fan]

maybe he tried and couldnt get one

My point exactly. Maybe the gun restrictions worked?

[stxspurs]

i can agree with that. its easier to go to gun show and get a semi auto same day

[da_suns_fan]

Now you're just asking questions that are purposefully impossible to answer, B.... nobody will likely ever know why he didn't just get a fully-automatic machine gun, tbh.... definitely shows you've lost the argument....

On the contrary. You just admitted that you found fully automatics inappropriate. Dont know why those are inappropriate but semis are not. You'll have to explain yourself.

Likewise, you cant tell me why he obeyed the law with respects to purchasing firearms even though you said earlier "criminals dont obey the law".

Why didnt this criminal buy better guns on the black market? We've been hearing for pages criminals just do what they want, anyway.

Game. Set. Match.

[Clipper Nation]

Who are YOU to say what someone needs?!!!
I'm not the one arguing for a full federal gun ban, you are..... if you read my post, I clearly said that it's up to each state to decide what types of firearms should be legal.... the onus is on you to prove the benefits of the federal government forcing law-abiding citizens to give up property that they legally obtained and are licensed to use, and you have repeatedly failed to do that, tbh...

[da_suns_fan]

i can agree with that. its easier to go to gun show and get a semi auto same day

Yep, and if semis were illegal, maybe he would have been armed with just a couple of revolvers that he could have purchased legally. Maybe there'd be a few more people alive today.

[Clipper Nation]

On the contrary. You just admitted that you found fully automatics inappropriate. Dont know why those are inappropriate but semis are not. You'll have to explain yourself.

Likewise, you cant tell me why he obeyed the law with respects to purchasing firearms even though you said earlier "criminals dont obey the law".

Why didnt this criminal buy better guns on the black market? We've been hearing for pages criminals just do what they want, anyway.

Game. Set. Match.

Colorado's gun purchasing and licensing process is clearly too lax and doesn't do a thorough enough job of weeding out nutjobs like the Aurora shooter.... I have said several times already that they need to change their process to ensure that this won't happen again....

[Blake]

/reductio ad absurdum

There you go.

[da_suns_fan]

I'm not the one arguing for a full federal gun ban, you are..... if you read my post, I clearly said that it's up to each state to decide what types of firearms should be legal.... the onus is on you to prove the benefits of the federal government forcing law-abiding citizens to give up property that they legally obtained and are licensed to use, and you have repeatedly failed to do that, tbh...


LMAO.

You just jumped from "people will do what they want" to "its a states rights thing".

What a bunch of bullshit.

Tell me why fully automatics should be legal, or admit that you just realized you are wrong.

[Clipper Nation]

There you go.

Yes, YOU are reducing the argument to absurdity by siezing on DMC's throwaway swimming pool line from ages ago instead of focusing on the overall points he's been making, B.... glad you finally admit it....

[da_suns_fan]

Colorado's gun purchasing and licensing process is clearly too lax and doesn't do a thorough enough job of weeding out nutjobs like the Aurora shooter.... I have said several times already that they need to change their process to ensure that this won't happen again....

FUN FACT: He had no prior criminal record. He could have bought a gun in ANY state. Its been confirmed.

I find it ridiculous that youre now calling for tighter restrictions on gun licenses.

I thought that was pointless since CRIMINALS DONT OBEY THE LAW?!!!!

Thats what Ive been reading for pages and pages, anyway.

[Clipper Nation]

LMAO.

You just jumped from "people will do what they want" to "its a states rights thing".

What a bunch of bullshit.


It IS a states' rights thing.... you clearly haven't been reading any of my posts...

These are the points I've been making all thread:

- Federal bans don't work (War on Drugs, Prohibition)
- Gun bans in other countries have failed to significantly decrease gun crime (Britain, Australia)
- It isn't the federal government's place to tell law-abiding citizens to give up property they legally obtained, are licensed to use, and use responsibly
- Colorado and other states need to closely examine the process they use for gun buying and licensing to make sure that nutjobs like the Aurora shooter can't get their hands on a gun

You, meanwhile, are putting words in my mouth and ascribing other arguments to me.... definitely shows that you don't have much of a case, B.....

[Heath Ledger]

Unfortunately Aurora has a city/county ordinance the prohibits carry of a firearm even with a state issued license.

By the way too soon?

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/486404_10151112197100930_805451394_n.jpg

[Heath Ledger]

Mugshot.


http://thumbs.mugshots.com/gallery/images/61/c3/James-Holmes-mugshot-21481125.png.400x800.jpg

[Clipper Nation]

FUN FACT: He had no prior criminal record. He could have bought a gun in ANY state. Its been confirmed.
IIRC, many states also require a mental health evaluation before you can own a gun.... strongly doubt this nutjob would have passed, tbh...


I find it ridiculous that youre now calling for tighter restrictions on gun licenses.
I'm arguing for a better process at the STATE level.... you, meanwhile, are arguing for a full-out FEDERAL ban on all guns.... if you honestly can't tell the difference between state and federal, I don't know what to tell you....


I thought that was pointless since CRIMINALS DONT OBEY THE LAW?!!!!
You really don't get it, B.... federal bans have proven to do nothing but punish law-abiding citizens and strengthen the black market (just look at Prohibition and the War on Drugs)..... still allowing guns while making the standards a bit more selective at the state level won't necessarily do that....

[mavs>spurs]

Even liberal CNN is at this moment admitting that in recent years, America has become more safe as gun sales have skyrocketed. The spin they are trying to out on it is "see, since it's safe everyone needs to turn in their guns voluntarily!" I'm in my phone or id post the link, it's on the front page.

[mavs>spurs]

They literally just acknowledged those worried about a gun grab and said no one is going to attack your 2nd amendment, it's off the political agenda! But since it's so safe, you should just go ahead and turn those in willingly.

Wow.

[Clipper Nation]

That argument is so stupid and transparent, I'm surprised da_suns_fan hasn't trotted it out in this thread, tbh.....

[Edward]

You are chickening out. Answer the question.

Automatic machine guns. AK-47s.

Should they be LEGAL?
imo if you wanna own AK-47s or machine guns, you should be able to keep whatever arms you want in your own house.

[Blake]

Yes, YOU are reducing the argument to absurdity by siezing on DMC's throwaway swimming pool line from ages ago instead of focusing on the overall points he's been making, B.... glad you finally admit it....

DMC's absurd point was that swimming pools are deadly.

I think it's terrific, so I've made it my throw away line.

[Blake]

imo if you wanna own AK-47s or machine guns, you should be able to keep whatever arms you want in your own house.

nukes too?

[Edward]

nukes too?
Cool slippery slope fallacy imo

[Clipper Nation]

nukes too?

We aren't constitutionally entitled to nukes, B.....

[mavs>spurs]

All nukes and nuke power should be banned for ANYONE to own, because their doing so infringes on the rest of our rights to life. Any perpetrator should be risen up against by the whole and safely disarmed.

[Blake]

Cool slippery slope fallacy imo

You said whatever arms.

Just making sure we are sticking with guns.

[Blake]

We aren't constitutionally entitled to nukes, B.....

It's debatable you are constitutionally entitled to guns, tbh.

[ALVAREZ6]

- Gun bans in other countries have failed to significantly decrease gun crime (Britain, Australia)


Well, I don't know when those countries have banned guns and what the numbers were like before then, but their current gun homicide as a percentage of all homicide rates are WAY lower than that of the US.

Percentage of Homicides by Firearm
USA: 60
England and Wales: 6.6
Australia: 11.5

Homicide by Firearm Rate per 100,000 Population
USA: 2.97
England and Wales: .07
Australia: .14

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list?newsfeed=true

I think these numbers are meaningful.

If you compare these numbers with the overall homicide rates, you see that the homicide rate is much higher for the US, a country that allows guns, than the other countries we're comparing here that have more gun restrictions. This tells you that the ease of buying a gun may affect number of murders significantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Take a look at that wikipedia article. All of the countries that have higher homicide rates than the US are less developed, in most cases WAY less developed. Most of those countries are utter shit. There aren't any highly developed, wealthy countries (western Europe, Japan, etc) that have homicide rates anywhere comparable to those of the US, and most have tighter restrictions on weapons.


IMO, being able to get a gun so easily has influenced the homicide rates in this country. Unfortunately, there are so many guns in circulation that tighter restrictions will likely not do much, at least in the short run, to limit murders significantly. You may prevent some psychos like the Aurora theater case and other similar ones, but probably most of the people gunning people down get their weapons through the black market. It's probably mainly gang/drug related.

[Clipper Nation]

It's debatable you are constitutionally entitled to guns, tbh.

Not even remotely debatable, based on the Founder's own words AND the SCOTUS' interpretation.... gun control advocates get hung up on the militia clause while ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is expressly given to the people, not just a militia, tbh.....

[da_suns_fan]

It IS a states' rights thing.... you clearly haven't been reading any of my posts...

These are the points I've been making all thread:

- Federal bans don't work (War on Drugs, Prohibition)
- Gun bans in other countries have failed to significantly decrease gun crime (Britain, Australia)
- It isn't the federal government's place to tell law-abiding citizens to give up property they legally obtained, are licensed to use, and use responsibly
- Colorado and other states need to closely examine the process they use for gun buying and licensing to make sure that nutjobs like the Aurora shooter can't get their hands on a gun

You, meanwhile, are putting words in my mouth and ascribing other arguments to me.... definitely shows that you don't have much of a case, B.....

Federal bans "dont work", yet there is a federal ban on automatic weapons that seems to work quite well.

Dont you find it strange that these criminals keep complying with the law when in comes to obtaining their firearms? None went on the black market to obtain better stuff. They got the best firearm that was legally available to them.

And your "Colorado needs better screening" argument is worthless. There is NOTHING in Holmes' past to suggest he is a nut-job. Short of REGULATING that everyone who purchases a gun must undergo an EXTENSIVE psycho-analysis, theres no screening process that would have prevented this guy from buying any and all guns available for sale.

[DMC]

High homicide rate, sounds like concealed carry is a good idea.

[Tavaris Jackson]

I understand why you rednecks want a hunting rifle not to be banned and all that. Makes sense to hunt animals with a rifle.

But it is completely fucking moronic to have semi-automatics not banned. No one in this fucking country needs a semi automatic to hunt or for any other purpose. Anything other than a hunting rifle and maybe pistol should be completely banned.

And none of you hillbilly republicans can make one logical reason to have a semi-automatic.

[da_suns_fan]

Still waiting on DMC's answer: Should FULLY automatic weapons be legal?

[DMC]

It's debatable you are constitutionally entitled to guns, tbh.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller), 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-1) and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum), the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-2) In McDonald v. Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago), 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-nytimes.com-3)



dj.1.entitled - qualified for by right according to law; "we are all entitled to equal protection under the law"eligible (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eligible) - qualified for or allowed or worthy of being chosen; "eligible to run for office"; "eligible for retirement benefits"; "an eligible bachelor"

[da_suns_fan]

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller), 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-1) and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum), the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-2) In McDonald v. Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago), 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-nytimes.com-3)



GREAT!

Should FULLY automatic weapons be legal?

[DMC]

GREAT!

Should FULLY automatic weapons be legal?

They are.

I own several.

Get your learn on before you get your yap on.

[Clipper Nation]

Federal bans "dont work", yet there is a federal ban on automatic weapons that seems to work quite well.
There's a federal ban on drugs that's been an expensive, racist mess, and there was a federal ban on alcohol that was such a disaster, a Constitutional amendment was ratified to prevent it from happening ever again....


Dont you find it strange that these criminals keep complying with the law when in comes to obtaining their firearms? None went on the black market to obtain better stuff. They got the best firearm that was legally available to them.
Don't you find it strange that the federal ban on marijuana doesn't stop anyone from smoking pot? Take away the legal, convenient option and criminals will move to the black market, while normal law-abiding citizens will have no means to defend themselves, or perhaps even turn to the black market themselves....

Meanwhile, if states simply made their standards tougher and criminals STILL turned to the black market, they can still be punished through the justice system while responsible owners can still have their guns....


And your "Colorado needs better screening" argument is worthless. There is NOTHING in Holmes' past to suggest he is a nut-job. Short of REGULATING that everyone who purchases a gun must undergo an EXTENSIVE psycho-analysis, theres no screening process that would have prevented this guy from buying any and all guns available for sale.
If state voters decide that every prospective gun owner should undergo a psych eval before they can buy a gun, then it would be a step in the right direction and a pragmatic solution that actually solves something, tbh....

[DMC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[DMC]

I understand why you rednecks want a hunting rifle not to be banned and all that. Makes sense to hunt animals with a rifle.

But it is completely fucking moronic to have semi-automatics not banned. No one in this fucking country needs a semi automatic to hunt or for any other purpose. Anything other than a hunting rifle and maybe pistol should be completely banned.

And none of you hillbilly republicans can make one logical reason to have a semi-automatic.
Can you make one logical reason to own a corvette? Should they be banned?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify a requirement to show need. You don't need freedom of speech.

[Tavaris Jackson]

DMC why does anyone need a semi or fully automatic weapon? What need is there for it?

[DMC]

DMC why does anyone need a semi or fully automatic weapon? What need is there for it?

Why do you need a troll name?

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, but about self defense. If I can do that better with a semi-auto, so be it.

[Tavaris Jackson]

Ah there it is. You have no answer to my question. You cant even logically reason for the stupid fucking idea that anyone needs those guns.

[Blake]

Not even remotely debatable, based on the Founder's own words AND the SCOTUS' interpretation.... gun control advocates get hung up on the militia clause while ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is expressly given to the people, not just a militia, tbh.....

It took 200 years for the SCOTUS to eek out a 5-4 decision in 2008 to confirm individual owners' rights.

It's definitely debatable.

[mavs>spurs]

DMC why does anyone need a semi or fully automatic weapon? What need is there for it?

for protection against foreign invasion or a tyrannical government of course, precisely what the founding fathers intending when writing the 2nd amendment.

[DMC]

It took 200 years for the SCOTUS to eek out a 5-4 decision in 2008 to confirm individual owners' rights.

It's definitely debatable.
No, it's not. The SCOTUS decision is what it is, and it's precedence to show it's not debatable in lower courts.

IF you think USSC case law is debatable, you're more stupid than you present yourself to be most of the time (and that's saying a lot).

[da_suns_fan]

They are.

I own several.

Get your learn on before you get your yap on.

You know what I mean.

Hughes amendment.

Machine gun ban except antiques.

So I ask again, should fully automatic weapons be legal? Should you be able to walk into a Bass Pro Shop and buy a fully automatic weapon?

Yes or no? Quit pussy-footing around!

[Tavaris Jackson]

for protection against foreign invasion or a tyrannical government of course, precisely what the founding fathers intending when writing the 2nd amendment.

That is the stupidest fucking reason I have ever heard.]

Literally the stupidest fucking reason. We dont live in the 1700/1800s.

We dont live in fucking anarchy, there is no possible chance of a tyrannical goverment happening in the next 100000 years.

And foreign invasion? Join the fucking army if you want to protect your homeland so bad. Or you can join it if you think you can do a better job than them. Or you can let the army do its job and protect us from "foreign invasion"

When was the last legit threat we had of a foreign invasion needing us to bear guns?

It wasnt stupid when they made that amendment, but now it is and its time to overrule that.

Exactly. Those reasons suck and are fucking stupid, thats like arguing Bowser is going to mutate from a lizard and take over the world.

[mavs>spurs]

You know what I mean.

Hughes amendment.

Machine gun ban except antiques.

So I ask again, should fully automatic weapons be legal? Should you be able to walk into a Bass Pro Shop and buy a fully automatic weapon?

Yes or no? Quit pussy-footing around!

of course you should, it's what the founding fathers intended. civilian firearm ownership wasn't just for personal protection against an individual attacker.

[da_suns_fan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

From your OWN LINK:


The domestic manufacture of new machine guns that civilians could purchase was effectively banned by language in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (also known as "McClure-Volkmer"). The language was added in an amendment from William J. Hughes and referred to as the Hughes Amendment.[22] Machine guns legally registered prior to the date of enactment (i.e. May 1986) are still legal for possession by and transfer among civilians where permitted by state law. The static and relatively small number of transferable machine guns has caused their price to rise, often over $10,000, although transferable Mac-10 and Mac-11 submachine guns can still be purchased for around $3,500. Machine guns manufactured after the FOPA's enactment can be sold only to law enforcement and government agencies, exported, or held as inventory or "dealer samples" by licensed manufacturers and dealers. Machine guns made after 1986 for law enforcement but not transferable to civilian registration are usually priced only a few hundred dollars more than their semi-automatic counterparts, whereas a pre-Hughes Amendment registered machine gun that can be legally transferred commands a huge premium.

DMC just owned himself.

So again, answer the question:

Should machine guns be available for commercial purchase? Should they drop the "new machine gun" regulation?

[da_suns_fan]

DMC wont answer the question....chicken-shit.

[Clipper Nation]

It took 200 years for the SCOTUS to eek out a 5-4 decision in 2008 to confirm individual owners' rights.

It's definitely debatable.
I'm sure if the SCOTUS made that decision in 1789, you'd argue that times have changed and we need a new decision, so quibbling about when the decision was made is pointless, tbh...

[da_suns_fan]

of course you should, it's what the founding fathers intended. civilian firearm ownership wasn't just for personal protection against an individual attacker.

So you are a "constitutionalist"! :lol:lol

Its a good thing they didnt put anything on that piece of paper REALLY messed up since you have canonized the founding fathers.

Heres a hypothetical? If the founding fathers had said "Right to own explosives", would you be okay with bombs be legal and available for purchase?

[Clipper Nation]

of course you should, it's what the founding fathers intended. civilian firearm ownership wasn't just for personal protection against an individual attacker.
At the very most, let the states continue to decide on how they want to regulate gun ownership..... not everything has to be a federal issue, tbh... in fact, too many things are these days....

[DMC]

You know what I mean.

Hughes amendment.

Machine gun ban except antiques.

So I ask again, should fully automatic weapons be legal? Should you be able to walk into a Bass Pro Shop and buy a fully automatic weapon?

Yes or no? Quit pussy-footing around!
Antiques? lol

http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l482/DMCSPURS/M203-1.jpg

Preban (pre 1986) is not antique.

There are some Thompsons out there that are antique, and some BARs but they are still considered NFA weapons and fall under the 1986 pre ban (cannot purchase if registered after that year unless you have a letter from a police chief and you are a FFL class 3 dealer or a police/military department.) but you can own a fully automatic rifle.

The bottom line is that fully automatic weapons are not illegal and there are 10's of thousands of these things out there. They are not cheap, but then that wasn't your argument.

Go Google more shit and get back to me on your next revision of your shitty argument.

[DMC]

At the very most, let the states continue to decide on how they want to regulate gun ownership..... not everything has to be a federal issue, tbh... in fact, too many things are these days....
States do not hold the power to deny Constitutional rights.

[da_suns_fan]

Antiques? lol

http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l482/DMCSPURS/M203-1.jpg

Preban (pre 1986) is not antique.

There are some Thompsons out there that are antique, and some BARs but they are still considered NFA weapons and fall under the 1986 pre ban (cannot purchase if registered after that year unless you have a letter from a police chief and you are a FFL class 3 dealer or a police/military department.

The bottom line is that fully automatic weapons are not illegal and there are 10's of thousands of these things out there. They are not cheap, but then that wasn't your argument.

Go Google more shit and get back to me on your next revision of your shitty argument.

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

I KNEW you wouldnt answer it, wuss.

How much does that gun cost DMC? A LOT huh? Probably because manufacturers are BANNED from selling automatics and you gotta find one THIRTY years old or older from a private citizen, huh?

So answer the question, chicken-shit. Should they lift the ban? Should fully automatics be available for commercial distribution and purchase? Should they be able to sell brand new, state-of-the-art fully automatics in Walmart?

You wont answer the question. But I'll keep asking.

[mavs>spurs]

So you are a "constitutionalist"! :lol:lol

Its a good thing they didnt put anything on that piece of paper REALLY messed up since you have canonized the founding fathers.

Heres a hypothetical? If the founding fathers had said "Right to own explosives", would you be okay with bombs be legal and available for purchase?

lol hypothetical "if" arguments

[DMC]

So you are a "constitutionalist"! :lol:lol

Its a good thing they didnt put anything on that piece of paper REALLY messed up since you have canonized the founding fathers.

Heres a hypothetical? If the founding fathers had said "Right to own explosives", would you be okay with bombs be legal and available for purchase?
They are.

[Clipper Nation]

Its a good thing they didnt put anything on that piece of paper REALLY messed up since you have canonized the founding fathers.
They have... the Enumeration Clause, Article 1, Section 9, and the Fugitive Slave Clause, all of which helped keep slavery in place... luckily, we have an amendment process to rectify things like that....

[da_suns_fan]

They are.

:rolleyes:rolleyes:rolleyes:rolleyes

There you go again.

DMC pussy-foots around every question.


Should there be any restrictions on bombs, DMC? Should anyone be able to buy a pre-assembled, ready to light pipe-bomb from a commercial store?

[da_suns_fan]

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

I KNEW you wouldnt answer it, wuss.

How much does that gun cost DMC? A LOT huh? Probably because manufacturers are BANNED from selling automatics and you gotta find one THIRTY years old or older from a private citizen, huh?

So answer the question, chicken-shit. Should they lift the ban? Should fully automatics be available for commercial distribution and purchase? Should they be able to sell brand new, state-of-the-art fully automatics in Walmart?

You wont answer the question. But I'll keep asking.

Bump

[Blake]

No, it's not. The SCOTUS decision is what it is, and it's precedence to show it's not debatable in lower courts.

IF you think USSC case law is debatable, you're more stupid than you present yourself to be most of the time (and that's saying a lot).

If you think USSC rulings can never be overturned, then you are even more clueless than you presented yourself to be earlier in this thread.

[DMC]

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

I KNEW you wouldnt answer it, wuss.

How much does that gun cost DMC? A LOT huh? Probably because manufacturers are BANNED from selling automatics and you gotta find one THIRTY years old or older from a private citizen, huh?

So then it's not about right to own, but ability to purchase. So then since a Ferrari costs 100K+, no one has a right to own one?

:lmao


So answer the question, chicken-shit. Should they lift the ban? Should fully automatics be available for commercial distribution and purchase? Should they be able to sell brand new, state-of-the-art fully automatics in Walmart?

That's the next revision of your shitty argument; to ask me another question about "ought" and ignore "is".

I wouldn't buy a .22lr from Walmart. I guess we know where you shop.


[quote]
You wont answer the question. But I'll keep asking.
No, you'll keep ignoring the fact that I shit down your neck on your several false assumptions.

Like I said, plebe, get your learn on then get your yap on.

[da_suns_fan]

So then it's not about right to own, but ability to purchase. So then since a Ferrari costs 100K+, no one has a right to own one?

:lmao

That's the next revision of your shitty argument; to ask me another question about "ought" and ignore "is".

I wouldn't buy a .22lr from Walmart. I guess we know where you shop.


No, you'll keep ignoring the fact that I shit down your neck on your several false assumptions.

Like I said, plebe, get your learn on then get your yap on.

:lol:lol:lol:lol

STILL wont do it. :lol

This is actually fun.

Cmon, DMC. You can do it. Just answer the question. Dont make jokes about walmart or whats technically still available for purchase between private citizens etc.

Im asking a simple question: Should they, or should they NOT, lift the automatic weapons ban implemented in 1986 under the Hyde amendment?

Its a simple question. Yes or No.

[DMC]

If you think USSC rulings can never be overturned, then you are even more clueless than you presented yourself to be earlier in this thread.
You aren't going to be on the USSC, so for you, it's not debatable. Once the USSC issues a ruling, that's what it is. Roe v Wade might get debated in little circles of useless banter, but abortion clinics don't go on standby awaiting your decisions.

[Clipper Nation]

DMC pussy-foots around every question.
You pussy-foot around every answer and ascribe arguments to people who didn't make them, B...

[DMC]

:lol:lol:lol:lol

STILL wont do it. :lol

This is actually fun.

Cmon, DMC. You can do it. Just answer the question. Dont make jokes about walmart or whats technically still available for purchase between private citizens etc.

Im asking a simple question: Should they, or should they NOT, lift the automatic weapons ban implemented in 1986 under the Hyde amendment?

Its a simple question. Yes or No.
You asked if fully automatic should be legal. They are.

You asked if bombs should be legal: they are

You are now asking me if Walmart should sell them.

Make up your fucking mind what you are trying to ask.

[Blake]

I'm sure if the SCOTUS made that decision in 1789, you'd argue that times have changed and we need a new decision, so quibbling about when the decision was made is pointless, tbh...

the point being is that if it was debatable for 200 years, then a 5-4 scotus decision 4 years ago doesn't suddenly end the historical/contextual debate.

[Clipper Nation]

I just don't get why da_suns_fan keeps coming back in here to get shat on, tbh.... at some point, you have to admit when you've lost the argument, right?

[da_suns_fan]

Nice editing of shitty formatting. You mad?

Your arguments are like ping pong balls and I keep smashing them as fast as you lob one over.

Im gonna start keeping track of how many posts you write before you answer whether they should lift the 1986 Hyde Amendment ban on fully automatic weapons.

Lets call this ONE. :lol

[DMC]

Im gonna start keeping track of how many posts you write before you answer whether they should lift the 1986 Hyde Amendment ban on fully automatic weapons.

Lets call this ONE. :lol
Try again.

There is/was no ban on automatic weapons. There was only the ban on manufacture for sale to the public.

A ban means there can be none, but there are plenty.


MP5A3 with S&H Arms Sear, New Co...Chad Strang$25,500.0007/09/2012http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/graphics/smallcamera.gifDetails (http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=20962&query=retrieval)

[Clipper Nation]

Im gonna start keeping track of how many posts you write before you answer whether they should lift the 1986 Hyde Amendment ban on fully automatic weapons.

Lets call this ONE. :lol
I would keep track of how many solid takes you've had in this thread, but I can't, as you haven't had any yet....

[Blake]

You aren't going to be on the USSC, so for you, it's not debatable.

I'm not in a court room so for me, it is debatable.

And if another gun case makes it's way up the scotus, then it will be debated in court again.... with a possible overturn.


Once the USSC issues a ruling, that's what it is. Roe v Wade might get debated in little circles of useless banter, but abortion clinics don't go on standby awaiting your decisions.

If you find the banter useless, nobody is putting a swimming pool to your head to reply.

[da_suns_fan]

I just don't get why da_suns_fan keeps coming back in here to get shat on, tbh.... at some point, you have to admit when you've lost the argument, right?

When your deflection involves making jokes about walmart and attacking the other's formatting, you know youve LOST the argument. :lol


I'll ask you same question ClipperNation. Should they lift the automatic weapons ban? Should you be able to walk in "Guns Galore" and buy a fully automatic, state-of-the-art automatic machine gun?

Lets see if you'll do what DMC is afraid to.

[da_suns_fan]

Try again.

There is/was no ban on automatic weapons. There was only the ban on manufacture for sale to the public.

A ban means there can be none, but there are plenty.


MP5A3 with S&H Arms Sear, New Co...Chad Strang$25,500.0007/09/2012http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/graphics/smallcamera.gifDetails (http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=20962&query=retrieval)

TWO. :lol

Should they lift the ban, buddy?

[DMC]

the point being is that if it was debatable for 200 years, then a 5-4 scotus decision 4 years ago doesn't suddenly end the historical/contextual debate.

No, your point (wrongly) was that the BoR doesn't grant him the right to own a firearm when the USSC expressly disagrees as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and these are career law scholars of the highest order.

[DMC]

TWO. :lol

Should they lift the ban, buddy?

I hope not. If they do, my guns won't be worth shit. You will be able to get a 25K MP5 for 1500.00

You don't get it. Not surprising. Gun dealers make the most when shit gets regulated. Supply/demand.

:lol you
:lol Suns

[da_suns_fan]

No, your point (wrongly) was that the BoR doesn't grant him the right to own a firearm when the USSC expressly disagrees as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and these are career law scholars of the highest order.

Three!!

Interesting that they allowed the Hyde Amendment, yes?

Should we lift it?

[Clipper Nation]

Should they lift the automatic weapons ban? Should you be able to walk in "Guns Galore" and buy a fully automatic, state-of-the-art automatic machine gun?
Who's "they"? Considering your past arguments, you probably mean the federal government, who never really had the jurisdiction to ban them in the first place, as it's a state issue, tbh...

[da_suns_fan]

I hope not. If they do, my guns won't be worth shit. You will be able to get a 25K MP5 for 1500.00

FOUR!

I asked if they should lift the ban, not what your guns would be worth if they did.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol da_suns_fan
:lol Still zero solid takes in this thread
:lol Doesn't know the difference between state and federal

[DMC]

FOUR!

I asked if they should lift the ban, not what your guns would be worth if they did.
Do you mean to ask me if I want them to lift it? How can "ought" be anything other than what I would like to see happen?

You're an idiot. Avante >>> you

[da_suns_fan]

Who's "they"? Considering your past arguments, you probably mean the federal government, who never really had the jurisdiction to ban them in the first place, as it's a state issue, tbh...

"They" in this context is the federal government.

And as DMC has correctly pointed out, they (the federal government) banned the manufacturing and selling of fully automatic weapons to the public since 1986.

So should they lift that ban? If a state wants to allow fully-automatics, should they be able to?

Armor piercing bullets (also illegal)?

[Clipper Nation]

Avante >>> you
His arguing skills are about as bad as Avante's, tbh.... they both just repeat their shit takes over and over again and ignore any facts that contradict their argument....

[DMC]

Who's "they"? Considering your past arguments, you probably mean the federal government, who never really had the jurisdiction to ban them in the first place, as it's a state issue, tbh...
Which is why they banned FFL (Federal Firearm Licensed) individuals from selling, and manufacturers from manufacturing for sale to the public.

Class 3 and FFL are federal jurisdictions, BATF.

[Blake]

No, your point (wrongly) was that the BoR doesn't grant him the right to own a firearm when the USSC expressly disagrees as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and these are career law scholars of the highest order.

you are wrongly trying to tell me what my point is.

And ftr, 4 of the law scholars of the highest order dissented. Just one more vote the other way would have flipped the decision.

[da_suns_fan]

Do you mean to ask me if I want them to lift it? How can "ought" be anything other than what I would like to see happen?

You're an idiot. Avante >>> you

Five!

You have been seriously owned.

Im simply asking if you believe that an existing ban that you admitted exists should be lifted and youre too chicken-shit to answer it.

Just tell me your opinion, bro! It aint hard!

I personally think they should keep the ban and even go further.

See? I just did it! :lol

What is YOUR opinion?

[DMC]

"They" in this context is the federal government.

And as DMC has correctly pointed out, they (the federal government) banned the manufacturing and selling of fully automatic weapons to the public since 1986.

So should they lift that ban? If a state wants to allow fully-automatics, should they be able to?

Armor piercing bullets (also illegal)?
:lmao cookie cutter liberal takes

[Clipper Nation]

"They" in this context is the federal government.
That's the biggest problem with all your points right there... gun laws should be (and generally are) a state issue, not a federal issue, tbh...


And as DMC has correctly pointed out, they (the federal government) banned the manufacturing and selling of fully automatic weapons to the public since 1986.

So should they lift that ban?Yes they should.... it should be up to the states to decide, not the federal government...


If a state wants to allow fully-automatics, should they be able to?If the state voters decide it's appropriate for them, then who are the rest of us to question their decision? I don't think any civilian needs a fully automatic, but if a state's population decides they do, that's their decision and we have to accept it....

[da_suns_fan]

His arguing skills are about as bad as Avante's, tbh.... they both just repeat their shit takes over and over again and ignore any facts that contradict their argument....

Nonsense. Youre too proud to answer the question (as is DMC).

Both of you are backed into a corner and are panicking because you just realized everyones point.

[Clipper Nation]

Nonsense. Youre too proud to answer the question (as is DMC).
I answered the question, B....

[da_suns_fan]

:lmao cookie cutter liberal takes

Six!! :lol

Cmon dude! If you think they should be legal, have the GUTS to say it.

Cmon, be a man.

[DMC]

Five!

You have been seriously owned.

Im simply asking if you believe that an existing ban that you admitted exists should be lifted and youre too chicken-shit to answer it.

Just tell me your opinion, bro! It aint hard!

I personally think they should keep the ban and even go further.

See? I just did it! :lol

What is YOUR opinion?


I hope not. If they do, my guns won't be worth shit. You will be able to get a 25K MP5 for 1500.00

You don't get it. Not surprising. Gun dealers make the most when shit gets regulated. Supply/demand.

:lol you
:lol Suns


Learn to read.

[Clipper Nation]

If you think they should be legal, have the GUTS to say it.
You're a dumbass if you truly think the federal government lifting the ban on fully-automatic guns automatically means they'll be legal.... the states can then ban them at the state level....

[da_suns_fan]

I answered the question, B....

I just saw that. Your response:


Yes they should.... it should be up to the states to decide, not the federal government...

Thank you for answering the question and being a man.

I personally think allowing each state to decide what is legal with regards to fully automatic weapons is asinine, but you are entitled to your opinion.

[da_suns_fan]

Learn to read.

Was that an answer?

Are you saying you hope the automatic weapon ban should stay in place NOT because you fear for public safety but because it would de-value the price of your personal firearms?!! :lol

Cant make this shit up!

[DMC]

I just saw that. Your response:



Thank you for answering the question and being a man.

I personally think allowing each state to decide what is legal with regards to fully automatic weapons is asinine, but you are entitled to your opinion.
You're so fired up mad that you just skip over posts.

Typical shitty takes liberal.

I should charge you for the education I've provided.

[Clipper Nation]

I personally think allowing each state to decide what is legal with regards to fully automatic weapons is asinine
That isn't asinine, it's how the Founders intended our government to work, in order to prevent tyranny....

What's really asinine is assuming that a group of aloof, corrupt politicians in Washington know what's best for all 50 states on state issues, when they have proven over and over again that they don't have a clue, tbh....

[DMC]

Was that an answer?

Are you saying you hope the automatic weapon ban should stay in place NOT because you fear for public safety but because it would de-value the price of your personal firearms?!! :lol

Cant make this shit up!

How many people are killed annually in the US by registered NFA weapons?

Tick tick tick...


What does it take to make a 700 dollar AR-15 into a fully automatic rifle?

Answer: a sear

What is a sear?

Hint: nothing to do with Roebuck.

[Clipper Nation]

You're so fired up mad that you just skip over posts.

Typical shitty takes liberal.

I should charge you for the education I've provided.
DMC with the regulation :worthy:

[da_suns_fan]

You're a dumbass if you truly think the federal government lifting the ban on fully-automatic guns automatically means they'll be legal.... the states can then ban them at the state level....

Youre a dumbass if you ever think I even implied that.

I dont care about your "states rights" fluff. Youve jumped form constitutionality to state rights to whether or not federal bans even work.

Youve stated your opinion. You think automatic weapons should be regulated at the state level. Congratulations, youre an idiot.

[DMC]

Youre a dumbass if you ever think I even implied that.

I dont care about your "states rights" fluff. Youve jumped form constitutionality to state rights to whether or not federal bans even work.

Youve stated your opinion. You think automatic weapons should be regulated at the state level. Congratulations, youre an idiot.
Your shtick has jumped the shark.

Move on faggot.

da suns faggot out Googling to find out I am correct but will say "nuh uh... you need a trigger group as well" as if trigger groups are registered.

[Clipper Nation]

I dont care about your "states rights" fluff. Youve jumped form constitutionality to state rights to whether or not federal bans even work.
These things are all related, tbh... and by the way, state's rights falls under constitutionality thanks to the Tenth Amendment.... further compounding the issue of the federal government usurping state's rights is that they've fucked up royally when they've done the same thing with alcohol and drugs, so why would guns be any different?


Youve stated your opinion. You think automatic weapons should be regulated at the state level. Congratulations, youre an idiot.
You think the federal government can handle a full-fledged draconian gun ban despite Prohibition and the War on Drugs being complete and utter disasters.... congratulations, you're an idiot...

[da_suns_fan]

You're so fired up mad that you just skip over posts.

Typical shitty takes liberal.

I should charge you for the education I've provided.

You educated me on what? That you want to keep that automatic weapons ban in place? Me too!

Why did you take so many posts to say so? Were in agreement! :lol

I want to keep the ban as well. In fact, I want to extend the same ban to semi-automatics and assault rifles.

Think Holmes could have bought a semi and an assault rifle if they cost as much as current automatics?

[ALVAREZ6]

I would keep track of how many solid takes you've had in this thread, but I can't, as you haven't had any yet....

I think I made a decent one that you guys have sort of ignored, about how the gun laws in the US seem to influence the number of homicides annually. I want to know what you guys make of the statistics, so I'll re-post:


Well, I don't know when those countries have banned guns and what the numbers were like before then, but their current gun homicide as a percentage of all homicide rates are WAY lower than that of the US.

Percentage of Homicides by Firearm
USA: 60
England and Wales: 6.6
Australia: 11.5

Homicide by Firearm Rate per 100,000 Population
USA: 2.97
England and Wales: .07
Australia: .14

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list?newsfeed=true

I think these numbers are meaningful.

If you compare these numbers with the overall homicide rates, you see that the homicide rate is much higher for the US, a country that allows guns, than the other countries we're comparing here that have more gun restrictions. This tells you that the ease of buying a gun may affect number of murders significantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Take a look at that wikipedia article. All of the countries that have higher homicide rates than the US are less developed, in most cases WAY less developed. Most of those countries are utter shit. There aren't any highly developed, wealthy countries (western Europe, Japan, etc) that have homicide rates anywhere comparable to those of the US, and most have tighter restrictions on weapons.


IMO, being able to get a gun so easily has influenced the homicide rates in this country. Unfortunately, there are so many guns in circulation that tighter restrictions will likely not do much, at least in the short run, to limit murders significantly. You may prevent some psychos like the Aurora theater case and other similar ones, but probably most of the people gunning people down get their weapons through the black market. It's probably mainly gang/drug related.

I think these numbers are too significant to ignore, and I'm not just using the numbers I've shown in that post for my argument. There are other countries that have similar, sometimes higher, homicide by firearm rates than the US, but they're mainly poor countries, modern day wild west situations.

The fact that pretty much no countries near the development of the US have homicide rates remotely close to the US, and that homicide by firearms accounts for the majority of homicide in the US, shows it's a problem.

[da_suns_fan]

You think the federal government can handle a full-fledged draconian gun ban despite Prohibition and the War on Drugs being complete and utter disasters.... congratulations, you're an idiot...

Hows that "draconian" ban on automatic weapons going?

Is that a failure?

Ask DMC how much his antique automatics cost.

Yo DMC, care to enlighten us?

[Clipper Nation]

I've already addressed that by saying that the states should look at their standards and figure out how best to decrease gun-related homicides, tbh...... federal intervention certainly wouldn't stop that any more than it's stopped drug use or alcohol consumption, though....

[Clipper Nation]

Hows that "draconian" ban on automatic weapons going?
Not too well, since people can still purchase and own them, tbh.... :lol

[mavs>spurs]

I think I made a decent one that you guys have sort of ignored, about how the gun laws in the US seem to influence the number of homicides annually. I want to know what you guys make of the statistics, so I'll re-post:



I think these numbers are too significant to ignore, and I'm not just using the numbers I've shown in that post for my argument. There are other countries that have similar, sometimes higher, homicide by firearm rates than the US, but they're mainly poor countries, modern day wild west situations.

The fact that pretty much no countries near the development of the US have homicide rates remotely close to the US, and that homicide by firearms accounts for the majority of homicide in the US, shows it's a problem.



if i had access to databases with scholarly journals, i'd show you guys where Dr. Gary Kleck's work put this issue to rest a long time ago. He is the reason why the laws are the way they are today. He showed conclusively that civilian gun ownership saves more lives and deters more crimes than those who die by gun violence. His finding (which has been backed up by others) was that guns save lives and deter crime.

You're confusing cause and correlation when saying that "well, since the US homicide rate is so high, and the US has guns, guns must cause more homicides!" But that is a false assumption and isn't backed by the studies by most criminologists. The fact is, the US leads the world in all kinds of crime, including those that don't involve the use of a firearm. We are ESPECIALLY high in crimes against children and sexual crimes. We are a sick, disturbed society compared to most modernized nations as far as that goes. It's time we took a look in the mirror instead of finding a scapegoat.

[da_suns_fan]

I've already addressed that by saying that the states should look at their standards and figure out how best to decrease gun-related homicides, tbh...... federal intervention certainly wouldn't stop that any more than it's stopped drug use or alcohol consumption, though....

Bro, you believe automatic weapons should be regulated at state level, we got it.

[da_suns_fan]

Not too well, since people can still purchase and own them, tbh.... :lol

Then why arent the mass murderers buying them?

Game. Set. Match.

[Tavaris Jackson]

Hunting Rifles and Pistols are fine.

Theres no fucking reason to have a semi or full though.

[DMC]

I think I made a decent one that you guys have sort of ignored, about how the gun laws in the US seem to influence the number of homicides annually. I want to know what you guys make of the statistics, so I'll re-post:



I think these numbers are too significant to ignore, and I'm not just using the numbers I've shown in that post for my argument. There are other countries that have similar, sometimes higher, homicide by firearm rates than the US, but they're mainly poor countries, modern day wild west situations.

The fact that pretty much no countries near the development of the US have homicide rates remotely close to the US, and that homicide by firearms accounts for the majority of homicide in the US, shows it's a problem.
Pretty sure I addressed this.

There are other factors you are not accounting for, like cultural and geographical differences. Those other nations do not have the same problems the US has with drug trafficking and gang violence.

Japan has less than 1/3 the homicide rates that Australia has. Why? When you figure that out, extrapolate to the US and you might find an answer that's not related to guns.

[DMC]

Hunting Rifles and Pistols are fine.

Theres no fucking reason to have a semi or full though.
Hunting rifles are semi. Same with handguns. A revolver is the same as a semi, one pull one shot, it just has a smaller capacity.

[DMC]

Then why arent the mass murderers buying them?

Game. Set. Match.

You've obviously never fired a fully automatic weapon. You can do more damage with a semi-auto than with a full auto. Full auto is for laying down suppressive fire, and unless your mass murder is going through the jungle and needs to cover his track or appear to be a bigger force than he is, he's going to stick to semi, even if he paid more for a full. Ammo runs out fast at 600 rounds per minute.

This is why even in urban settings most tactical units use a 3 round burst at most. Beyond that you're walking away from your target and endangering others.

Larger light machine guns that can be stabilized can enable you to put a lot of lead downrange in a short time, and even then it's about odds of hitting. That's why snipers do more damage than LMGs in those situations.

[da_suns_fan]

You've obviously never fired a fully automatic weapon. You can do more damage with a semi-auto than with a full auto. Full auto is for laying down suppressive fire, and unless your mass murder is going through the jungle and needs to cover his track or appear to be a bigger force than he is, he's going to stick to semi, even if he paid more for a full. Ammo runs out fast at 600 rounds per minute.

This is why even in urban settings most tactical units use a 3 round burst at most. Beyond that you're walking away from your target and endangering others.

Larger light machine guns that can be stabilized can enable you to put a lot of lead downrange in a short time, and even then it's about odds of hitting. That's why snipers do more damage than LMGs in those situations.

:lol

I love how you went from "youve obviously never fired a weapon" to "youve obviously never fired a fully automatic weapon".

Sucks getting your ass handed to you, huh?

In this case, youre actually RIGHT! I have never fired a fully automatic weapon (nor do I want to).

However, I dont agree with your narrative that homicidal mass murderers ALWAYS decide to go semi vs fully automatic because semis are more effective (unless your in the jungle, according to you).

I believe its PROBABLY because the fully automatics cost 30 times as much (due to regulation), are much harder to purchase and are guaranteed to be at least 26 years old.

But whatever. If you want to believe that choice in weapon was due to tactical decisions, thats your opinion.

[Tavaris Jackson]

Since Friday's shooting, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg has voiced a desire to put forth gun control legislation.
"Our hearts are still heavy with sadness after the tragedy in Colorado, but we need to start today on efforts to prevent the next attack," Lautenberg said in a statement Sunday. "We should begin by passing my legislation to ban the sale of high-capacity gun magazines."


That should be no problem, right? Does DMC or anyone have a problem against that if that did happen?

[da_suns_fan]

That should be no problem, right? Does DMC or anyone have a problem against that if that did happen?

Good question.

ClippersNation will answer: Its a states right to decide!

DMC will answer a non-answer: Magazine size doesnt matter.....magazine size is the same as the size of your swimming pool.

[DMC]

:lol

I love how you went from "youve obviously never fired a weapon" to "youve obviously never fired a fully automatic weapon".

You've done neither, but you've certainly never fired one in full auto if you think full auto weapons are more dangerous than semi auto weapons.

The Brady Bill, for example, banned evil features on guns, like forearm grips, bayonet lugs, all that eerie shit you see in video games that make guns EVIL.

It was done as a placebo for ignorant fucks like you.


Sucks getting your ass handed to you, huh?
Write an essay and talk about it.


In this case, youre actually RIGHT! I have never fired a fully automatic weapon (nor do I want to).
I am always right. Get used to it.


However, I dont agree with your narrative that homicidal mass murderers ALWAYS decide to go semi vs fully automatic because semis are more effective (unless your in the jungle, according to you).
Homicidal mass murderers? Is that like super wet water or darkness with no light?

Dude spent 20K on shit. He could have had 2 fully auto Uzis and he took the time required to be cleared for them. He didn't want them. He wanted what he got. If people wanted to use a full auto to go on a mass murdering spree, why hasn't anyone done so? It's easy to make an AR-15 into a fully automatic rifle.


I believe its PROBABLY because the fully automatics cost 30 times as much (due to regulation), are much harder to purchase and are guaranteed to be at least 26 years old.
I "shot that down" already. They only cost more if you get them legally anyhow. They can be easily altered, and anyone who takes the time to booby trap an apartment with the shit that guy had would have no problem inserting a sear pin and updating the trigger group.


But whatever. If you want to believe that choice in weapon was due to tactical decisions, thats your opinion.Dude with tactical gear, bullet proofing, tear gas, mask and all that shit, cannot alter a gun? Doubt it. He's more versed in the effects of the weapon than are you.

Remember the dudes who used fully automatic AKs to rob that bank? How many people did they kill when they came out blazing? None, they shot one guy in the leg. Both were killed, not by an automatic, but one by a sniper with a 308 and the other by a semi auto picked up in a nearby shop.

Oh they made a mess, lots of noise, kept people at bay, but they died. Meanwhile a guy in San Marcos Texas killed 2 or 3 officers with a hunting rifle because he aimed and shot, and he had the element of surprise.

Again, you are using stupid ass cookie cutter arguments that are easily defeated because they don't contain any semblance of understanding of reality. Like Flake, err... Blake, your arguments are filled with emotive jargon, presumptions and hyperbole.

I might as well be arguing with an 8th grader.

[da_suns_fan]

You've done neither, but you've certainly never fired one in full auto if you think full auto weapons are more dangerous than semi auto weapons.

Qualified on M-16 several times when I was in the military. Never qualified as "expert". Never cared, really.

We were taught they removed full auto from M-16 during Vietnam and switched to three round burst.

I never even fired it in "three round burst" mode. Only in semi-automatic mode.

Didnt even bother reading rest of your stuff since your first sentence was incorrect.

[TE]

dmc going HAM in here

[Blake]

dmc going HAM in here

DAM, imo

[da_suns_fan]

That should be no problem, right? Does DMC or anyone have a problem against that if that did happen?

Still waiting on answer (or non answer) to this one.

[DMC]

Qualified on M-16 several times when I was in the military. Never qualified as "expert". Never cared, really.

We were taught they removed full auto from M-16 during Vietnam and switched to three round burst.

I never even fired it in "three round burst" mode. Only in semi-automatic mode.

Didnt even bother reading rest of your stuff since your first sentence was incorrect.

Ergo you've have no idea what you are talking about even though your military superiors did (which is why they had you qualify in semi).

Paper commandos

[Clipper Nation]

ClippersNation will answer: Its a states right to decide!
And I'd be right, since this is indeed a state issue whether you'd like it to be or not, tbh.....

[ALVAREZ6]

if i had access to databases with scholarly journals, i'd show you guys where Dr. Gary Kleck's work put this issue to rest a long time ago. He is the reason why the laws are the way they are today. He showed conclusively that civilian gun ownership saves more lives and deters more crimes than those who die by gun violence. His finding (which has been backed up by others) was that guns save lives and deter crime.

You're confusing cause and correlation when saying that "well, since the US homicide rate is so high, and the US has guns, guns must cause more homicides!" But that is a false assumption and isn't backed by the studies by most criminologists. The fact is, the US leads the world in all kinds of crime, including those that don't involve the use of a firearm. We are ESPECIALLY high in crimes against children and sexual crimes. We are a sick, disturbed society compared to most modernized nations as far as that goes. It's time we took a look in the mirror instead of finding a scapegoat.
I'm not saying it's causation, but I think it definitely is an influence. I'm not even entirely sure of exactly where I stand in this issue, but I lean towards the side that there are certain firearms we should not be legally allowed to buy or own. I'm not looking for a scapegoat either, that goes against my thought process.

[da_suns_fan]

They only cost more if you get them legally anyhow.

Dude bought everything legally. :lol

[DMC]

That should be no problem, right? Does DMC or anyone have a problem against that if that did happen?
Didn't work last time.

Banning the sale of them just means the current ones become more expensive, it doesn't mean they go away. Even years after the previous ban, it was easy to get high capacity magazines.

With shotguns, you just remove the plug and you have an up to 8 round weapon, and riot guns have long tubes and they are easily accessible.

Not surprised a sleazy politician would use this event to get his name in the paper trying to "stop it from happening again". If he was serious, he would go for a gun ban, but he likes his job too much so he's offering a feel good placebo to get votes.

[DMC]

Dude bought everything legally. :lol
Context: you were talking about fully automatic weapons. Keep it in line, stop floundering.

[mavs>spurs]

I'm not saying it's causation, but I think it definitely is an influence. I'm not even entirely sure of exactly where I stand in this issue, but I lean towards the side that there are certain firearms we should not be legally allowed to buy or own. I'm not looking for a scapegoat either, that goes against my thought process.

firearms as a deterent:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_vic-crime-robbery-victims

Crime Statistics > Robbery victims (most recent) by country

VIEW DATA: Totals
Definition Source Printable version
Bar Graph Map Correlations

Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Poland: 1.8%
# 2 Italy: 1.3%
= 3 Australia: 1.2%
= 3 United Kingdom: 1.2%
= 5 France: 1.1%
= 5 Portugal: 1.1%
= 5 Slovenia: 1.1%
# 8 Belgium: 1%
= 9 Sweden: 0.9%
= 9 Canada: 0.9%
# 11 Netherlands: 0.8%
= 12 New Zealand: 0.7%
= 12 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 0.7%
Crime in Saint Kitts and Nevis

= 12 Denmark: 0.7%
= 12 Switzerland: 0.7%
= 16 Finland: 0.6%
= 16 United States: 0.6%
# 18 Malta: 0.4%
# 19 Austria: 0.2%
# 20 Japan: 0.1%


In the US, you are much less likely to get robbed thanks to civilian gun ownership. Criminals like to pick easy targets. If crime rates are so high here, why is robbery so low? It seems that we are a violent population full of people who would rather find an easy victim looking at those numbers.

[da_suns_fan]

Context: you were talking about fully automatic weapons. Keep it in line, stop floundering.

You just said that it would only be more expensive if he bought a fully automatic legally.

I just said he bought all his guns legally, thus if he wanted to buy one, it probably would have cost him more money.

Seriously, bro?

[ALVAREZ6]

firearms as a deterent:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_vic-crime-robbery-victims

Crime Statistics > Robbery victims (most recent) by country

VIEW DATA: Totals
Definition Source Printable version
Bar Graph Map Correlations

Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Poland: 1.8%
# 2 Italy: 1.3%
= 3 Australia: 1.2%
= 3 United Kingdom: 1.2%
= 5 France: 1.1%
= 5 Portugal: 1.1%
= 5 Slovenia: 1.1%
# 8 Belgium: 1%
= 9 Sweden: 0.9%
= 9 Canada: 0.9%
# 11 Netherlands: 0.8%
= 12 New Zealand: 0.7%
= 12 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 0.7%
Crime in Saint Kitts and Nevis

= 12 Denmark: 0.7%
= 12 Switzerland: 0.7%
= 16 Finland: 0.6%
= 16 United States: 0.6%
# 18 Malta: 0.4%
# 19 Austria: 0.2%
# 20 Japan: 0.1%


In the US, you are much less likely to get robbed thanks to civilian gun ownership. Criminals like to pick easy targets. If crime rates are so high here, why is robbery so low? It seems that we are a violent population full of people who would rather find an easy victim looking at those numbers.
At the bottom of that list I found this interesting:


DEFINITION: People victimized by robbery (as a % of the total population). Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.

[DMC]

You just said that it would only be more expensive if he bought a fully automatic legally.

And that is true. He could construct a fully automatic rifle for about the same price he paid for some of the things he had. He wasn't trying to be legal, in case you didn't notice.


I just said he bought all his guns legally, thus if he wanted to buy one, it probably would have cost him more money.

He bought his car legally too.


Seriously, bro?
We've come full circle. Do you think it should be illegal to have access to anything you can use to kill other people? Answer that without floundering.

The argument was that fully automatic weapons are not desired by people planning on killing as many as they can. As you saw in Norway, one man with a sniper rifle can do a lot of damage. As you saw in VA Tech, handguns can take a shit load as well if the shooter isn't scared to die and the victims are afraid or unable to defend themselves. Whether the guns are legal or not, the act of killing people is not.

[mavs>spurs]

Being pussy sure is working out well for the Brits

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html


The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By JAMES SLACK
UPDATED: 18:14 EST, 2 July 2009
Comments (0)
Share

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

Britain has an even worse violence rate than South Africa (file picture)
The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.
In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:
The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.


The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

More...
Hindley on the Moors, a chilling snapshot that closes the book on 45-year search for young victim
Biggs WILL die in jail: Straw overturns parole board's decision to free train robber - because he's never shown remorse
'We're now on our fourth Home Secretary this parliament, and all we are getting is a rehash of old initiatives that didn't work the first time round. More than ever Britain needs a change of direction.'
The figures, compiled by the Tories, are considered the most accurate and up-to-date available.
But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

New Home Secretary Alan Johnson is to make his first major speech on crime today
In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.
There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.
Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning.
But Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading.
Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.
'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. That is why last year we published 'Saving lives. Reducing harm. Protecting the public. An Action Plan for Tackling Violence 2008-11'.'
The timing of the Europe-wide violence figures is a blow for Mr Johnson, who will today seek to reassert Labour's law and order credentials.
In his first major speech on crime since becoming Home Secretary, Mr Johnson is expected to promise a concerted crack down on antisocial behaviour.
He wants to set up a website to allow the public to see what is taking place in their neighbourhood, such as the number of louts who have been served with Asbos.
Mr Johnson is also known to support early intervention to stop children going off the rails.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz21VSHv82e

Also from the article..it seems that when you look at ALL violent crimes not just murders but burglaries, assaults, and robberies, pacifist britain has it even worse than we do.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg

[DMC]

Being pussy sure is working out well for the Brits

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html



Also from the article..it seems that when you look at ALL violent crimes not just murders but burglaries, assaults, and robberies, pacifist britain has it even worse than we do.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg
I've been there. I wouldn't die to protect that Ikea shitty furniture either, and if one got their teeth knocked out, they just saved a bundle on orthodontics, plus if their hairy ass women get raped, they often have to chase the perp to pay him.

They only report it for bragging rights.

[Heath Ledger]

Still waiting on DMC's answer: Should FULLY automatic weapons be legal?

They are legal dipshit with the proper permit/tax stamp

[Heath Ledger]

If you think the results of the Aurora shootings were bad, wait til you see what happens when uncle sames tries to ram a gun ban down our throat. There will be blood.

[DMC]

If you think the results of the Aurora shootings were bad, wait til you see what happens when uncle sames tries to ram a gun ban down our throat. There will be blood.
There would be a few isolated incidents but all in all, no one would do anything because fat sheep don't rebel.

[Heath Ledger]

There are plenty of former military who would step to the plate myself included.

[ALVAREZ6]

There are plenty of former military who would step to the plate myself included.

WTF would you do other than get yourself killed?

[da_suns_fan]

DMC has actually revealed something tonight. Want to beat a gun advocate in this argument? Its easy and I will show you how. Gun advocates have a major, major weakness.

Their whole argument is based on the idea that "guns dont kill people, people kill people". Their kryptonite, however, is the fully-automatic weapons ban enacted in 1986. They are scared to death to discuss whether or not the FULLY automatic weapons "ban" should be lifted.The reason being any SANE person would be against allowing manufacturers to create and sell state-of-the art, fully automatics to the general public, right? Too dangerous for public use, right?

But if they admit that fully automatics are "too dangerous", then they have to admit that they understand the CONCEPT that "some weapons are inherently more dangerous than others".

Why would they be against admitting this? Because if they agree with the statement "all weapons are not created equal", then they cant "play dumb".
They cant pretend that a person with knives, swords, swimming pools etc is just as dangerous as a person with semi-automatics and assault rifles. You make them admit that theyre not as dumb as they pretend to be, and their whole argument falls apart.

This is why DMC ran for the hills when I pressed him and pressed him on the fully automatic weapons ban. His dodging of the question was epic. Instead of answering the question, he made fun of Walmart guns, my shooting experience, THE SUNS (seriously), denied that ban even existed etc.
Basically, he would talk about ANYTHING except whether or not they Hyde amendment should be lifted.

It gets better: When he FINALLY decided that I'd embarrassed him enough, he replied "I hope not (ban get lifted), it would devalue the fully automatics I currently own (since regulation has made fully automatics extremely rare)".
Thus, he reveals that what he actually cares about is his current gun collection. All that other stuff...the swimming pools and cars being dangerous...its all bullshit. The only thing gun advocates care about is their guns. They just dont have the guts to actually SAY IT because they know it makes them sound like assholes.

So they "play dumb" and tell themselves nonsense about how regulations dont work and people are just as dangerous with swords, swimming pools as they are with assault rifles.

So thats it. Get them to admit that fully automatics or bombs or missile launchers are too dangerous for public use and their whole argument falls apart.

[da_suns_fan]

They are legal dipshit with the proper permit/tax stamp

Yo Heath, do you think that the 1986 Ban/Restriction on fully automatics should be lifted? :lol

[da_suns_fan]

DMC has actually revealed something tonight. Want to beat a gun advocate in this argument? Its easy and I will show you how. Gun advocates have a major, major weakness.

Their whole argument is based on the idea that "guns dont kill people, people kill people". Their kryptonite, however, is the fully-automatic weapons ban enacted in 1986. They are scared to death to discuss whether or not the FULLY automatic weapons "ban" should be lifted.The reason being any SANE person would be against allowing manufacturers to create and sell state-of-the art, fully automatics to the general public, right? Too dangerous for public use, right?

But if they admit that fully automatics are "too dangerous", then they have to admit that they understand the CONCEPT that "some weapons are inherently more dangerous than others".

Why would they be against admitting this? Because if they agree with the statement "all weapons are not created equal", then they cant "play dumb".
They cant pretend that a person with knives, swords, swimming pools etc is just as dangerous as a person with semi-automatics and assault rifles. You make them admit that theyre not as dumb as they pretend to be, and their whole argument falls apart.

This is why DMC ran for the hills when I pressed him and pressed him on the fully automatic weapons ban. His dodging of the question was epic. Instead of answering the question, he made fun of Walmart guns, my shooting experience, THE SUNS (seriously), denied that ban even existed etc.
Basically, he would talk about ANYTHING except whether or not they Hyde amendment should be lifted.

It gets better: When he FINALLY decided that I'd embarrassed him enough, he replied "I hope not (ban get lifted), it would devalue the fully automatics I currently own (since regulation has made fully automatics extremely rare)".
Thus, he reveals that what he actually cares about is his current gun collection. All that other stuff...the swimming pools and cars being dangerous...its all bullshit. The only thing gun advocates care about is their guns. They just dont have the guts to actually SAY IT because they know it makes them sound like assholes.

So they "play dumb" and tell themselves nonsense about how regulations dont work and people are just as dangerous with swords, swimming pools as they are with assault rifles.

So thats it. Get them to admit that fully automatics or bombs or missile launchers are too dangerous for public use and their whole argument falls apart.

Bump. Dont want people to miss out.

[Heath Ledger]

Yo Heath, do you think that the 1986 Ban/Restriction on fully automatics should be lifted? :lol


Sure why not. With a thorough background check, psych eval, and proper training with the weapon.


You people talking all of this shit about guns are ridiculous. You have a better chance of being eaten alive by a shark than being injured or killed in shooting like the one in Aurora.

[mavs>spurs]

WTF would you do other than get yourself killed?

you've got no clue about the way people in america feel about their guns and freedom. millions of people would step up to the plate, and half the army would defect as well as former military. yes it's THAT big a deal.

the 2nd amendment is what has allowed us to stay free and prosper. without guns, we're still under the british crown.

[DMC]

It sure is cold up here in the hills. :lol

[da_suns_fan]

Sure why not. With a thorough background check, psych eval, and proper training with the weapon.


You people talking all of this shit about guns are ridiculous. You have a better chance of being eaten alive by a shark than being injured or killed in shooting like the one in Aurora.

Chances of getting killed by a gun in the US:

4.5 in 100k

Shark attack odds: one in 11.5 million

Try again, bro.

[da_suns_fan]

Sure why not. With a thorough background check, psych eval, and proper training with the weapon.


You people talking all of this shit about guns are ridiculous. You have a better chance of being eaten alive by a shark than being injured or killed in shooting like the one in Aurora.

So you agree that pysch evals should be needed for gun purchasing?

What if i want to sell a fully automatic to my neighbor? Who pays for the psych eval? :lol

What other product requires a psych eval to buy?

[DMC]

Chances of getting killed by a gun in the US:

4.5 in 100k

Shark attack odds: one in 11.5 million

Try again, bro.
That's why I carry a gun, not shark repellant.

[mavs>spurs]

Bump. Dont want people to miss out.

i've already beaten your argument, it's quite simple.

it's already legal to purchase a fully automatic rifle. and our founding fathers intended us to have weapons equal to what the military has. the 2nd amendment served a dual purpose, one of which was a deterrent against tyranny. in fact, not allowing us to purchase fully automatic weapons goes against the 2nd amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. in any way. that doesn't mean pick and choose which arms you can infringe upon and which ones you can't. they're all ours per our constitutional rights. whenever the revolver was invented, they didn't ban it on the grounds that it could do more damage than a single shooter. same thing with a fully auto, which is just an improvement upon the semi auto.

[DMC]

So you agree that pysch evals should be needed for gun purchasing?

What if i want to sell a fully automatic to my neighbor? Who pays for the psych eval? :lol

What other product requires a psych eval to buy?

You cannot sell a fully automatic to your neighbor legally. You have to get a FFL Class 3 dealer to transfer the weapon, and forms have to be filed and background checks done and your local asshole has to sign off on it.

[da_suns_fan]

It sure is cold up here in the hills. :lol

As I said, you exposed that youre not as dumb as you actually PRETEND to be.

You understand the automatic weapons "ban", you just pretend not to.

You understand why semi-automatics assault rifles are too dangerous, you just PRETEND not to. You actually equated them to swimming pools. But I know youre not THAT dumb.

You just love your guns A LOT. Thats all.

[ALVAREZ6]

you've got no clue about the way people in america feel about their guns and freedom. millions of people would step up to the plate, and half the army would defect as well as former military. yes it's THAT big a deal.

the 2nd amendment is what has allowed us to stay free and prosper. without guns, we're still under the british crown.
I do know how people feel about their guns in this country.

You act like things haven't changed since the 17th century. I don't think people revolting and starting a war against the American government and military is realistic.

[Heath Ledger]

Chances of getting killed by a gun in the US:

4.5 in 100k

Shark attack odds: one in 11.5 million

Try again, bro.


find the odds on a mass shooting as i listed dickhead...

[DMC]

Btw, a Gatling gun isn't a fully automatic weapon. It doesn't require any special permits, but you better have a shit load of money if you want one.

[mavs>spurs]

I do know how people feel about their guns in this country.

You act like things haven't changed since the 17th century. I don't think people revolting and starting a war against the American government and military is realistic.

it would be unlawful for the military to be used against the people per our constitution and would open up grounds for intervention by the international community, for one.

for 2, most of our military are good people and would not fire upon those they are sworn to protect and serve. in order for there to be a revolution, there would have to be a damn good reason. one that any true american would agree upon, and half of the military would be on our side. just like the way the military split and broke off in syria right now in their civil war. you realize it's basically army defectors vs the army right? and the defectors are raising hell right now. they just recently killed some of his closest advisors and rumored to have injured the man himself in the attack. don't underestimate the willpower of a united people.

[da_suns_fan]

find the odds on a mass shooting as i listed dickhead...

Only mass shooting "count" when it comes to dying via a gun!

You find the odds, "dickhead". It was YOUR stupid claim.

[DMC]

As I said, you exposed that youre not as dumb as you actually PRETEND to be.

I wish I could say the same about you.


You understand the automatic weapons "ban", you just pretend not to.
You don't, you just make shit up and do Google searches to try to keep up.


You understand why semi-automatics assault rifles are too dangerous, you just PRETEND not to. You actually equated them to swimming pools. But I know youre not THAT dumb.
There's no such as a semi-automatic assault rifle. An assault rifle is an automatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm) rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle) that uses an intermediate cartridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridges) and a detachable magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29).

More ignorant ass CNN speak by an ignorant ass liberal pencil pushing paper turned keyboard commando.

The rest of your gibberish is just that.


You just love your guns A LOT. Thats all.I happen to understand cause and effect, and your hyperbolic argument has been reduced to arguing about my motive instead of arguing facts. It doesn't fucking matter what I think ought to happen, facts exist and I've educated you on them and you're now much less of an ignorant asshole than you were, but still as much of an asshole.

[da_suns_fan]

btw "Heath Ledger" - Please provide me another product or service that requires a "psych eval" before purchase since that was YOUR solution to allowing fully automatic weapons.

[DMC]

There are a few different schools of thought (loosely using that term here).

1. Ban guns, they's evil and I don't understand them
2. Ban some guns, they's evil and I don't understand them
3. Ban some evil features of guns because evil features are evil and I don't understand them
4. Who needs evil guns? I don't understand them
5. Require stupid, invasion of privacy shit in order to allow people to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
6. mmmm guns

[da_suns_fan]

I wish I could say the same about you.
You don't, you just make shit up and do Google searches to try to keep up.
There's no such as a semi-automatic assault rifle. An assault rifle is an automatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm) rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle) that uses an intermediate cartridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridges) and a detachable magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29).

More ignorant ass CNN speak by an ignorant ass liberal pencil pushing paper turned keyboard commando.

The rest of your gibberish is just that.
I happen to understand cause and effect, and your hyperbolic argument has been reduced to arguing about my motive instead of arguing facts. It doesn't fucking matter what I think ought to happen, facts exist and I've educated you on them and you're now much less of an ignorant asshole than you were, but still as much of an asshole.

Didnt need a google search bro. YOUR wikipedia link provided all the information I needed on the Hyde amendment. Talk about self-ownage!

You wanted to PRETEND that fully automatic weapons were just as legal as semi-automatic weapons. In fact, fully automatics are extremely rare and expensive since theyve been banned from manufacturer distribution since the mid-80s!

Again, youre not THAT dumb. You just pretend to be because you REALLY like your guns!

Youve thrown every ad-hominem attack at me. Youve accused me of being a liberal (Im not), never having fired a weapon (I have), being a Suns fan (dont know how thats relevant but whatever) because you realized that acknowledging that some weapons are more dangerous than others totally fucksup your whole argument.

[DMC]

Didnt need a google search bro. YOUR wikipedia link provided all the information I needed on the Hyde amendment. Talk about self-ownage!

You wanted to PRETEND that fully automatic weapons were just as legal as semi-automatic weapons. In fact, fully automatics are extremely rare and expensive since theyve been banned from manufacturer distribution since the mid-80s!

Again, youre not THAT dumb. You just pretend to be because you REALLY like your guns!

Youve thrown every ad-hominem attack at me. Youve accused me of being a liberal (Im not), never having fired a weapon (I have), being a Suns fan (dont know how thats relevant but whatever) because you realized that acknowledging that some weapons are more dangerous than others totally fucksup your whole argument.

1. Do you think cops should have guns? Why?
2. Do you think cops should have fully automatic rifles? Why?
3. Do you think cops should have nuclear weapons? Why?

[da_suns_fan]

1. Do you think cops should have guns? Why?


2. Do you think cops should have fully automatic rifles? Why?



3. Do you think cops should have nuclear weapons? Why?

1. Yes. Because guns are an extremely effective tool for killing people which cops sometimes have to do.


2. Fully automatic? No. Cant think of a reason why. Cant think of a real world situation where cops need that kind of fire power.

3. No. Again, cops dont need that type of destructive capability.

[DMC]

1. Yes. Because guns are an extremely effective tool for killing people which cops sometimes have to do.


2. Fully automatic? No. Cant think of a reason why. Cant think of a real world situation where cops need that kind of fire power.

3. No. Again, cops dont need that type of destructive capability.

Why do cops sometimes have to kill people?

So killing someone with a fully automatic weapon is worse

Baltimore firm develops automatic rifle for military, SWAT

Adcor Industries competing with major gunmakers for Army contract to replace M4 carbine



What's the difference between a gun and a nuke?

[da_suns_fan]

Also, if the cops faced a situation where "fully automatics" were necessary, they would probably call in the national guard (individuals better trained with those weapons and types of scenarios).

Cops dont neeed em.

[da_suns_fan]

Why do cops sometimes have to kill people?

So killing someone with a fully automatic weapon is worse

What's the difference between a gun and a nuke?

THIS is why youre an idiot. This is what I mean by "pretending to be dumb".

Youre not THAT dumb, why do you pretend to be?

[DMC]

Also, if the cops faced a situation where "fully automatics" were necessary, they would probably call in the national guard (individuals better trained with those weapons and types of scenarios).

Cops dont neeed em.

Why would the military need them?

[DMC]

THIS is why youre an idiot. This is what I mean by "pretending to be dumb".

Youre not THAT dumb, why do you pretend to be?
I need you to answer. What is the difference between using a gun and using a nuke? Both kill people. Both are designed to kill people. Both have no other purpose.

[DMC]

Do you think a person should be able to walk into Walmart and buy a nuke?

Ok forget the nuke, should they be able to buy a laser guided bomb?

Forget that too, how about a hand grenade?

No?

Firecrackers?