Shooting at Conn Elementary, 20 reported dead [Archive] - Page 3

DMC

12-18-2012, 03:35 PM

That's an incredibly terrible reason.

Your question is invalid. Try rephrasing it. Perhaps you should ask "why shouldn't semiautomatic weapons be banned?" to which I could actually answer, however you continue to ask hypothetical questions about legality when it's not a hypothetical. Why should guns be legal, that's an invalid question. Why should semiautos not be legal, that's a valid question. You didn't answer that. You're basically shifting the burden of proof.

My knowledge of what rates are.

Did you see that guy shoot 12 rounds in less than 3 seconds from a revolver? Your knowledge is worthless since you don't have a frame of reference.

I'm trying to lecture you? I was trying to have a discussion but was met with "you don't know anything about guns. I'm not here to educate." Then what are you here to do? Contribute so much by trying to belittle other people?
No, you're trying to tell me that semiauto weapons do this or that, they are dangerous, they should be banned, blah blah blah, but you don't know anything about the existing laws or semiautos. You just have a general, foggy idea that some exist and you want them changed because you are now frightened.

One anti-gun guy put it best (though unintentionally) when he said "I would feel much safer if guns were banned". The feeling of being safe does not equate to being safe. Those in that school felt safe until they realized they weren't safe. Guns are banned from schools.

Here's an idea, tell me what you think:

The media should be banned from reporting on these things until after a few days have gone by and the facts are clear. Sensationalism of these events fuels copycats and sets up the next attack. It's not an accident this guy dressed much like the guy in Aurora. It's no accident they both dressed much like the guy from "Rampage".

Let's re-examine the 1st Amendment. There's absolutely nothing good to come from all this shoddy reporting and sensationalism. It's akin to yelling "Fire" in a movie theater (no pun intended).

Next, let's ban violent video games. Why does a 12 year old need to spend all day and afternoon pretending to kill people? Why does he need to know all the different gun types and loadouts? Nothing good can possibly come from that. Racing games and strategy games that don't involve killing should be the only video games legal for release.

Let's also ban violent rap music or any music that invokes a theme of killing police officers, spouses or random people. No bragging about being a killer, having a gun or being a badass. All that should be illegal to produce.

Youtube should be shutdown. Videos of people sucker punching other people, ganging up and beating the shit out of some poor kid just to put it on WSHH or Youtube, that needs to be banned. The avenues for inciting and glorifying killing and violence need to be closed.

The 1st Amendment needs to be revisited. Once we do that, we can move on to the 2nd.

Shastafarian

12-18-2012, 04:39 PM

Your question is invalid. Try rephrasing it. Perhaps you should ask "why shouldn't semiautomatic weapons be banned?" to which I could actually answer, however you continue to ask hypothetical questions about legality when it's not a hypothetical. Why should guns be legal, that's an invalid question. Why should semiautos not be legal, that's a valid question. You didn't answer that. You're basically shifting the burden of proof.My question is valid. Perhaps instead of "legalization" I should have said "legality". You're trying to sound smart and it's only partially working. There is no burden of proof. I'm asking you for a justification for the legality of certain types of weapons. Valid.

Did you see that guy shoot 12 rounds in less than 3 seconds from a revolver? Your knowledge is worthless since you don't have a frame of reference. I mean I don't think guns should really be that available to the public. The fact that non-automatic weapons can fire fast is also troubling. Guns are dangerous. Semi-automatic guns are very dangerous.

No, you're trying to tell me that semiauto weapons do this or that, they are dangerous, they should be banned, blah blah blah, but you don't know anything about the existing laws or semiautos. :lol I know they are very dangerous and that they are legal. What else should I know? Oh I forgot you don't like to lecture.

You just have a general, foggy idea that some exist and you want them changed because you are now frightened. I'm not frightened. I'm mad that more people had to die because people like you are stubborn and selfish.

One anti-gun guy put it best (though unintentionally) when he said "I would feel much safer if guns were banned". The feeling of being safe does not equate to being safe. Those in that school felt safe until they realized they weren't safe. Guns are banned from schools. Yeah they felt safe until someone USED A GUN ON THEM.

Here's an idea, tell me what you think:

The media should be banned from reporting on these things until after a few days have gone by and the facts are clear. Sensationalism of these events fuels copycats and sets up the next attack. It's not an accident this guy dressed much like the guy in Aurora. It's no accident they both dressed much like the guy from "Rampage". Sure I agree.

Let's re-examine the 1st Amendment. There's absolutely nothing good to come from all this shoddy reporting and sensationalism. It's akin to yelling "Fire" in a movie theater (no pun intended). What would you do? Outlaw news?

Next, let's ban violent video games. Why does a 12 year old need to spend all day and afternoon pretending to kill people? Why does he need to know all the different gun types and loadouts? Nothing good can possibly come from that. Racing games and strategy games that don't involve killing should be the only video games legal for release.ahahaha slippery slope eh? Cool I figured you go down this route. My response to all of your let's ban [inset normal or benign activity] because it's associated with [insert crime] is this: Nothing else, aside from mental health, is a key issue in this. Guns and the lack of regulation on citizen ownership thereof is probably the most important of the two. You're on the losing side in this.

Fernando TD21

12-18-2012, 05:39 PM

How does a law make it harder for a criminal to acquire illegal things?
How is the criminal going to acquire weapons if a law stops the legal commercialization of those weapons? He will have to look for weapons in the black market. But it won't be easy because these people will be hiding from the law. Also the prices would probably increase.

cantthinkofanything

12-18-2012, 05:46 PM

How is the criminal going to acquire weapons if a law stops the legal commercialization of those weapons? He will have to look for weapons in the black market. But it won't be easy because these people will be hiding from the law. Also the prices would probably increase.

:lol

DisAsTerBot

12-18-2012, 05:49 PM

Fernando TD21

12-18-2012, 06:49 PM

how do criminals commit crimes if they are against the law?
Wow you just completely missed the point. I already stated in more than one post that criminals doesn't care if a certain thing is illegal or not. And it has nothing to do with why it would be harder to commit certain crimes.

DPG21920

12-18-2012, 06:55 PM

Wow you just completely missed the point. I already stated in more than one post that criminals doesn't care if a certain thing is illegal or not. And it has nothing to do with why it would be harder to commit certain crimes.

To play DA, drugs are illegal (in fact usa spends a lot of money in that regard) and it's very simple to acquire drugs.

DMC

12-18-2012, 07:23 PM

My question is valid. Perhaps instead of "legalization" I should have said "legality". You're trying to sound smart and it's only partially working. There is no burden of proof. I'm asking you for a justification for the legality of certain types of weapons. Valid.

But you are asking for a form of proof. Guns were never illegal in this country. If they were, then you'd have a good question when you ask "why should they be legal?".

I mean I don't think guns should really be that available to the public. The fact that non-automatic weapons can fire fast is also troubling. Guns are dangerous. Semi-automatic guns are very dangerous.

Define "that available". You're getting into gun laws here so be careful. Guns are not dangerous. There are gun stores all over the USA that are very safe places to be. It's not dangerous to be around a police officer who's carrying a gun. Guns are inanimate, passive objects.

I need to know your age range. I've debated a guy who used similar misconceptions as you and it turned out he was 16 years old and knew nothing of the terms he was applying. A knife is far more dangerous than a gun. It's always loaded. You bump a knife you could get cut. You can bump a gun and nothing happens. Guns are instruments that enable the user to exert deadly force on a target of his/her choosing. It's the choosing part that's dangerous if it's done improperly, as was the case in Connecticut. Until you can level out your hyperbolic terminology, discussion with you on this is going to go no where it hasn't already gone.

:lol I know they are very dangerous and that they are legal. What else should I know? Oh I forgot you don't like to lecture.

If you want to voice an opinion on a subject, it's your responsibility to be knowledgeable on that subject else you come off looking like a naive, ignorant kid. That's your choice, but don't expect me to keep correcting you while you give your opinion on the matter, as obviously your opinion is worthless since you're ignorant of the facts. Imagine a jury that didn't get to hear the trial.

I'm not frightened. I'm mad that more people had to die because people like you are stubborn and selfish.

More hyperbole. If you had a point you'd probably not even know it.

Yeah they felt safe until someone USED A GUN ON THEM.

Exactly my point. Feeling safe isn't the same as being safe. The ability to respond to a threat instead of trying to hide from it, cowering under a table, is a big part of the 2nd Amendment's original intent. I am referring to the teachers, not the kids.

Sure I agree.

What would you do? Outlaw news?

Only the dangerous stuff. It serves no purpose other than to draw attention to the network.

ahahaha slippery slope eh? Cool I figured you go down this route. My response to all of your let's ban [inset normal or benign activity] because it's associated with [insert crime] is this: Nothing else, aside from mental health, is a key issue in this. Guns and the lack of regulation on citizen ownership thereof is probably the most important of the two. You're on the losing side in this.

There's nothing benign about brainwashing children into thinking it's cool to kill people, and then giving them a hero like the Aurora guy to emulate. There are 20 dead kids who'd beg to differ with you if they could.

DMC

12-18-2012, 07:27 PM

Wow you just completely missed the point. I already stated in more than one post that criminals doesn't care if a certain thing is illegal or not. And it has nothing to do with why it would be harder to commit certain crimes.
I addressed this just fine. You want to use a trickle down gun ban. Bans are legalities only, and only those who remain within the confines of the law would be affected. You're claim is that after those people have been affected long enough, guns themselves would be harder and harder to acquire illegally. You're discounting the fact that a black market would spring up instantly. You're naive on many things with that argument, mostly that you don't even think that's the argument you're making but it is.

Give an example of something that's been banned in the USA that we could once easily acquire but now even criminals cannot easily acquire, something that's not a consumable.

Latarian Milton

12-18-2012, 07:46 PM

I addressed this just fine. You want to use a trickle down gun ban. Bans are legalities only, and only those who remain within the confines of the law would be affected. You're claim is that after those people have been affected long enough, guns themselves would be harder and harder to acquire illegally. You're discounting the fact that a black market would spring up instantly. You're naive on many things with that argument, mostly that you don't even think that's the argument you're making but it is.

Give an example of something that's been banned in the USA that we could once easily acquire but now even criminals cannot easily acquire, something that's not a consumable.
truth bomb tbh. drugs are banned in most states but it's still not very hard to buy some drugs at a fair price. if legal gun sales are removed from the market then i'd see domestic gun production shrinking alot, and the real thugs can still buy imported weapons from black markets. the overall price would probably rise a bit due to the loss of domestically produced guns but that ain't shit compared to how much they can possibly harvest by robbing a bank using these guns imho

DMC

12-18-2012, 08:03 PM

truth bomb tbh. drugs are banned in most states but it's still not very hard to buy some drugs at a fair price. if legal gun sales are removed from the market then i'd see domestic gun production shrinking alot, and the real thugs can still buy imported weapons from black markets. the overall price would probably rise a bit due to the loss of domestically produced guns but that ain't shit compared to how much they can possibly harvest by robbing a bank using these guns imho

"at a fair price" I lmao

da_suns_fan

12-18-2012, 08:46 PM

da_suns_fan

12-18-2012, 09:22 PM

DMC's does everything to avoid questions....usually by trying to point out that a statement you made about guns or gun ownership is incorrect.

But the truth is he just likes his guns and doesnt want to give them up. Only an idiot would believe that semi-auotmatics and larger magazines arent more dangerous or that banning them wouldnt make them harder to get.

Again, advocates have to pretend to be stupid because theyre too chicken shit to just admit that they simply dont want to give up their guns.

z0sa

12-18-2012, 09:59 PM

Mexico is a gargantuan, heavily populated third world country, rampant with third world problems. A huge, well-funded crime war involving millions of people and billions of dollars continues unabated within its borders. Civilian deaths were higher in 2011 in Mexico than in Afghanistan. Predictably, US border violence has increased to an all time high. And that very border exists, at its closest points, a mere couple hundred miles from me. Should someone living so close to a country crushed by economic struggle, consumed by drugs, and rife with violence as Mexico be denied the right to own certain types of weapons that these cutthroat could spare by the thousands? As long as Mexico is as dangerous of a place as it currently is, I have to stand for keeping Texas' gun laws the same or even relaxing then more. apply this rule the rest of the states bordering (by land) Mexico and/or any other bordering country. Other states could have very strict or no guns for all I care. A law like this wont stop every criminal from going crazy, but for what it's worth, Connecticut borders only other US states.

Maybe one day Mexico, and the world, will change dramatically. However, that day is not soon. I read articles before the election concerning Mexicans' opinions about both candidates' essential lack of a position on Mexico's penchant for on-going violence and general economic chaos. Without major American intervention, I don't see the struggle ending anytime soon.

DUNCANownsKOBE

12-18-2012, 10:21 PM

Fernando TD21

12-18-2012, 10:27 PM

To play DA, drugs are illegal (in fact usa spends a lot of money in that regard) and it's very simple to acquire drugs.
Drugs have high demand, drugs are easier to traffic in small portions, and I imagine drugs aren't as expensive. I also think drugs are much more profitable since the drug users keep coming back for more.

Clipper Nation

12-18-2012, 10:38 PM

Isnt it bizarre that the mass murderers always use guns (instead of a car, knife, hammer etc) and never use the black market?

This shooter stole the guns from someone else...

z0sa

12-18-2012, 10:47 PM

If you're that concerned with the violence in Mexico, you should focus on ending the war on drugs, not limiting gun control. The main reason Mexico's violence doesn't end is because drug laws in this country, outside of a few states, have gotten more stringent than ever and we make Mexico's drug operations lucrative. Obama has been a bigger marijuana nazi than any president in recent memory.

The war on drugs should end, and I gladly lend my voice to that cause. I'm no Obama fan. I'm not particularly afraid of Mexico's drug war exploding onto my street, either. But I try to be a realist. I doubt the war on drugs - one of America's many highly overpriced wars - ends in the near future. I feel this way because even people on the left tend to support hard drugs being illegal. While arrests and funding might go down significantly if weed was legal, they would no doubt just ramp up the war against the other drugs. The war on drugs has no end.

Back on point, what scares me about Mexico isn't so much the firearms as their availability. It will always be easy to run guns from Mexico. Yet most Americans won't even dream of getting weapons on the black market. I am thoroughly against arming the terrorists, murderers, and criminals (including Americans) while we turn in our weapons.

da_suns_fan

12-18-2012, 11:37 PM

This shooter stole the guns from someone else...

That were bought legally.

This massacre doesnt happen if the shooter didnt have an assault rifle and semi-automatics available in his house.

Nice attempt though.

rascal

12-19-2012, 12:46 AM

This shooter stole the guns from someone else...

If his stupid mother wasn't a gun enthusiast and didn't buy guns , going to the school and shooting it up would not have happened. He probably would have killed his mother with a knife and it would have ended there.

Clipper Nation

12-19-2012, 02:09 AM

That were bought legally.

Not by him...

DMC

12-19-2012, 02:27 AM

More of the same shit from gun advocates.

"Person behind a car is dangerous....criminals dont follow the law anyway....blah blah blah"

Isnt it bizarre that the mass murderers always use guns (instead of a car, knife, hammer etc) and never use the black market?

Gun advocates have to pretend to be complete morons. They PRETEND to actually believe that guns arent more inherently dangerous than other weapons.

Why are police officers called to deal with violence or suspected break-ins? Don't say "it's their job". Why is it their job? Why is the gun less dangerous when the police officer has it?

DMC

12-19-2012, 02:31 AM

If his stupid mother wasn't a gun enthusiast and didn't buy guns , going to the school and shooting it up would not have happened. He probably would have killed his mother with a knife and it would have ended there.

So given the known conditions, that people do indeed have guns and that some people are bat shit crazy, you choose to not protect yourself against these people and just hope all the guns disappear.

Good luck with that. I will protect myself, my family and my home.

DMC

12-19-2012, 02:36 AM

That were bought legally.

This massacre doesnt happen if the shooter didnt have an assault rifle and semi-automatics available in his house.

Nice attempt though.
It didn't have to happen regardless. It's not like he was forced, against his will, to kill 20 children. It's not like he was a kid. The truth is you are powerless as can possibly be to do anything to prevent this kind of thing from happening, but you cannot accept that so you go after whatever you think you might have a chance as placing blame on. You've built a strawman out of the gun debate and basically ignored any human wrongdoing because you cannot do shit about it. I understand the frustration, but at some point you have to admit to yourself that you are powerless in the grand scheme, and you have to decide if you're going to remain prey to these things instead of taking matters into your own hands and protecting yourself. All the hate in the world isn't going to change anything. Assault weapons have been restricted in the past, as have magazine capacities. What happened was that existing stock sold like hotcakes and now there are about 10x the number of each that there would have otherwise been.

At the end of the day, even the law doesn't matter. All that matters is that I protect myself and my family.

rascal

12-19-2012, 09:51 AM

So given the known conditions, that people do indeed have guns and that some people are bat shit crazy, you choose to not protect yourself against these people and just hope all the guns disappear.

Good luck with that. I will protect myself, my family and my home.

You miss everyone's points. You have blinders on, I am going to own guns and that is it. If someone wants to kill you they will, if you own a gun or not. You will be shot before you even know what hit you. Let's say the mob has a hit on you, you are gone, gun or not. Are you going to be walking around with an assault weapon strapped around your neck everywhere you go?

how are you going to protect yourself otherwise?

Dumb solution is to add more guns. How many more guns do you want? You want every man, woman and child to be armed? There are already millions of guns in the country and that s the problem, there are just too many guns already out there and those guns end up in the hands of the wrong people.

DMC

12-19-2012, 10:04 AM

You miss everyone's points. You have blinders on, I am going to own guns and that is it. If someone wants to kill you they will, if you own a gun or not. You will be shot before you even know what hit you. Let's say the mob has a hit on you, you are gone, gun or not. Are you going to be walking around with an assault weapon strapped around your neck everywhere you go?

You can die while wearing a seat belt, but I still wear mine.

It's illegal to walk around with an assault rifle. I do have a CHL however, and I am routinely carrying a semi-auto. I have been for over 15 years. I've never even pulled it on anyone, never even thought I might have to. I also haven't changed a flat tire in years, nor have I used my first aid kit in my truck or my boat. That doesn't mean I need to get rid of them.

A mob hit, really?

how are you going to protect yourself otherwise?

Since my assault rife is an actual assault rifle, a select fire fully automatic weapon, it's not my first choice for home defense. There's a tactical element to home defense weapon choice that requires more than just a blurb on a page for people to actually comprehend so I'll spare you of the details.

Dumb solution is to add more guns. How many more guns do you want? You want every man, woman and child to be armed? There are already millions of guns in the country and that s the problem, there are just too many guns already out there and those guns end up in the hands of the wrong people.
I don't think anyone has suggested adding more guns. I simply stated that your choice to live in fear because your irrational hatred for guns leaves you and your family at risk is your own choice. I choose to be educated on something that could one day save my life or the life of someone I love. Every year I spend a few days at a place that teaches tactical response and home defense. It might do nothing for me, but I would feel irresponsible if something happened to my family and I couldn't do anything but use a cell phone.

Neither of us are going to eliminate guns from the crime stats in the US, but your stance is akin to not wearing a seat belt because you think road hazards should be eliminated. I don't like wearing a seat belt. I don't like carrying a concealed handgun. It's cumbersome, but it's better than the alternative.

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 10:16 AM

DMC

12-19-2012, 10:25 AM

the problem is that it's too easy for the gun control crowd to point at these mass killings as their proof that we need gun control. but the fact is that there are thousands more lives saved, rapes and assaults avoided, etc. just due to the simple fact that people are allowed to have guns.

The problem is that gun rights advocates willingly take on the onus of proof when it comes to gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment was ratified long long ago. The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those who wish to do away with the 2nd Amendment.

Imagine trying to demand proof that the 1st Amendment is necessary. It's not necessary, except to a free state.

From Wiki:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) issued two landmark decisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_Sta tes) concerning the Second Amendment. 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-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-2) 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-3) 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-4)

These are interpretations of the BoR. The argument of "should" doesn't come into play in the USSC cases. "Should", then, is an individual decision, unless anyone here thinks that the USSC will overturn it's own rulings.

What will happen is placebo legislation on evil features, things that the gun ignorant person thinks makes a gun more effective for killing, like forearm grips and magazine capacity and black synthetic stocks.

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 10:30 AM

The problem is that gun rights advocates willingly take on the onus of proof when it comes to gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment was ratified long long ago. The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those who wish to do away with the 2nd Amendment.

Imagine trying to demand proof that the 1st Amendment is necessary. It's not necessary, except to a free state.

From Wiki:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) issued two landmark decisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_Sta tes) concerning the Second Amendment. 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-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-2) 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-3) 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-4)

These are interpretations of the BoR. The argument of "should" doesn't come into play in the USSC cases. "Should", then, is an individual decision, unless anyone here thinks that the USSC will overturn it's own rulings.

What will happen is placebo legislation on evil features, things that the gun ignorant person thinks makes a gun more effective for killing, like forearm grips and magazine capacity and black synthetic stocks.

if we start down this road, I don't think it stops. Someone starts sniping people, then we have to ban scopes. someone goes nuts with a revolver, shit, why would anyone need 6 shots?

DMC

12-19-2012, 10:33 AM

if we start down this road, I don't think it stops. Someone starts sniping people, then we have to ban scopes. someone goes nuts with a revolver, shit, why would anyone need 6 shots?

We don't need to follow idiots down these dead end roads. We have the BoR. The same BoR allows them to say whatever they like about the government without being imprisoned, censored or killed allows us to keep and bear arms. They don't have to like it. Sometimes most of us don't like due process in cases where the killer seems obvious.

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 10:37 AM

We don't need to follow idiots down these dead end roads. We have the BoR. The same BoR allows them to say whatever they like about the government without being imprisoned, censored or killed allows us to keep and bear arms. They don't have to like it. Sometimes most of us don't like due process in cases where the killer seems obvious.

Are you confident that the BoR is not going to be under attack under this administration?

leemajors

12-19-2012, 10:39 AM

List of school shootings and anti depressants gunmen were being treated with:

http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school

Doesn't prove there is a direct link, but it seems this should be discussed moreso than gun control.

DMC

12-19-2012, 10:43 AM

Are you confident that the BoR is not going to be under attack under this administration?

If it could be defeated, Clinton would have done so. Libs run on a platform of "we are not trying to take guns away" then they try to pass legislation to restrict firearms. Technically they've never passed a law that takes away guns. Even fully autos were grandfathered in if you registered them.

No, I don't think the BoR will be under attack. I think, as I said, congress will compromise and pass some placebo legislation because they know that the USSC will shoot down any extreme gun control laws and states will flip the bird to ratification of any changes to the BoR.

The link is interesting. My BiL spoke to a school board recently (when his property taxes were increased) and showed them that 25% of their students were on some form of behavior modification medication. There's a legal limit to the percentage of students that can be on that, and most schools ignore that and parents who don't like to actually raise kids will drug them, and if little johnny isn't acting like his brother, he's depressed and gets medications.

Some is probably necessary, but most of it is just big pharma in cahoots with doctors. I didn't know a single person in HS who was taking any behavior mod drugs.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 12:11 PM

It didn't have to happen regardless. It's not like he was forced, against his will, to kill 20 children. It's not like he was a kid. The truth is you are powerless as can possibly be to do anything to prevent this kind of thing from happening, but you cannot accept that so you go after whatever you think you might have a chance as placing blame on. .

Bull SHIT.

If assault rifles arent legal, his mother doesnt buy one.

Unless this extremely bizarre and introverted kid has connections in a military black market, its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that he would have been able to get these weapons.

Thats not powerless. Thats systematically eliminating the availability of a lethal weapon to the general public.

The truth is, youre just incredibly selfish. All you care about is that you get to keep your guns, in spite of the fact that 20 kids got murdered. Youre just too chicken shit to admit it.

I hope they take away your guns and i hope you cry like the pussy that you are when they do it.

thunderfan

12-19-2012, 01:40 PM

Bull SHIT.

If assault rifles arent legal, his mother doesnt buy one.

Unless this extremely bizarre and introverted kid has connections in a military black market, its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that he would have been able to get these weapons.

Thats not powerless. Thats systematically eliminating the availability of a lethal weapon to the general public.

The truth is, youre just incredibly selfish. All you care about is that you get to keep your guns, in spite of the fact that 20 kids got murdered. Youre just too chicken shit to admit it.

I hope they take away your guns and i hope you cry like the pussy that you are when they do it.

No, but his mom still buys the Sig pistol (or whatever it was). He gets that, takes 20 loaded mags with him and does the same damn thing. Doesn't take an assault rifle to do what he did. Or he borrows the 12 gauge from his friend's brother that likes to duck hunt. Banning assault rifles does nothing but force the guy to choose a different tool for his sick job he has planned.

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 02:03 PM

leemajors

12-19-2012, 02:05 PM

US govt banning things usually turns out enabling organized crime's exponential growth in the end.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 02:19 PM

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 02:20 PM

Except he has to STOP TO RELOAD.

Guess when they tackled Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson.

which of the first graders was going to tackle him when paused 3 seconds to change clips?

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 02:21 PM

Which is what exactly a large part of the gun control crowd already knows. they'll systematically ban everything item by item as it is used in some tragic killing.
He could have walked in there with a couple of revolvers, killed 7 or 8 children and we'd be having the same discussion about the need to control guns.

7 or 8 <<<<< 26

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 02:22 PM

which of the first graders was going to tackle him when paused 3 seconds to change clips?

Would have given them time to run away or an adult (teacher etc) a chance to tackle him.

The point is assault rifles are much more lethal...thats why the psychos choose them.

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 02:24 PM

7 or 8 <<<<< 26

yeah...I get that. It's better. But my point was that if he had walked in and killed 7 or 8 kids with revolvers, we'd be having the exact same discussions about gun control.
None of the gun control side would be saying, "good thing he didn't have a semi auto".

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 02:25 PM

Would have given them time to run away or an adult (teacher etc) a chance to tackle him.

The point is assault rifles are much more lethal...thats why the psychos choose them.

He had to change clips on the .223 also.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 02:29 PM

He had to change clips on the .223 also.

I dont know how many round that carries...im guessing more than six.

If Im in a crowded movie theater or a school and getting shot at, Id much prefer he has revolvers vs semi-automatics and assault rifles. Wouldnt you?

Again, I dont have to prove that assault rifles and semi-automatics are more dangerous. The Psychos do that by consistently choosing them over shot guns, revolvers etc.

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 02:35 PM

No, but his mom still buys the Sig pistol (or whatever it was). He gets that, takes 20 loaded mags with him and does the same damn thing. Doesn't take an assault rifle to do what he did. Or he borrows the 12 gauge from his friend's brother that likes to duck hunt. Banning assault rifles does nothing but force the guy to choose a different tool for his sick job he has planned.

Except he has to STOP TO RELOAD.

Guess when they tackled Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson.

If Assault Rifles dont change anything, then WHY DO THE PSYCHOS KEEP USING ASSAULT RIFLES?

I dont know how many round that carries...im guessing more than six.

If Im in a crowded movie theater or a school and getting shot at, Id much prefer he has revolvers vs semi-automatics and assault rifles. Wouldnt you?

Again, I dont have to prove that assault rifles and semi-automatics are more dangerous. The Psychos do that by consistently choosing them over shot guns, revolvers etc.

You responded to thunderfan's comments on the 20 rd handgun clips saying that when he reloaded, they would have time to tackle him. It takes less than a couple of seconds to change out 20 rd. magazines. Haven't seen what the Conn. shooter used but I'm guessing 30 round clips. He still had to change out clips.

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 02:40 PM

I dont know how many round that carries...im guessing more than six.

If Im in a crowded movie theater or a school and getting shot at, Id much prefer he has revolvers vs semi-automatics and assault rifles. Wouldnt you?

Again, I dont have to prove that assault rifles and semi-automatics are more dangerous. The Psychos do that by consistently choosing them over shot guns, revolvers etc.

And in this case, the psycho "chose" the AR-15 because that was the gun his mom had. It's a popular and affordable gun. Would it surprise you that the most wrecked car in the U.S. is also one of the most popular?
Or would you just assume it was the most dangerous?

Drachen

12-19-2012, 02:47 PM

And in this case, the psycho "chose" the AR-15 because that was the gun his mom had. It's a popular and affordable gun. Would it surprise you that the most wrecked car in the U.S. is also one of the most popular?
Or would you just assume it was the most dangerous?

He could have chosen any of the other three guns she had (and he had with him).

johnsmith

12-19-2012, 02:48 PM

Obviously you guys never played Metal Gear. Revolver Ocelot could fuck shit up back in the day.

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 02:50 PM

He could have chosen any of the other three guns she had (and he had with him).

what's your point? are you saying he couldn't have done similar damage with the Glock and Sig?

Drachen

12-19-2012, 02:52 PM

what's your point? are you saying he couldn't have done similar damage with the Glock and Sig?

The conversation was about the fact that they always choose assault rifles. You said he didn't choose it because it was the only one available to him. I told you that it wasn't and therefore he chose it.

Clipper Nation

12-19-2012, 02:57 PM

The truth is, youre just incredibly selfish. All you care about is that you get to keep your guns, in spite of the fact that 20 kids got murdered. Youre just too chicken shit to admit it.

I hope they take away your guns and i hope you cry like the pussy that you are when they do it.
This non-argument is just as idiotic as the last time you tried it last summer...

The fact is, there are plenty of responsible, licensed gun owners who have a Constitutional right to that property... you are not the arbiter over whether they "need to" or "should" own guns, the fact is that they are legally entitled to own them....

Punishing innocent people for the actions of a nutjob is ridiculous...

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 02:58 PM

The conversation was about the fact that they always choose assault rifles. You said he didn't choose it because it was the only one available to him. I told you that it wasn't and therefore he chose it.

There were 3 (or 4?) guns that his mom had. He took them. Out of the three, he went with the AR-15. We have no idea why. It's possible that this is what he's seen most in the movies or video games. Or it's possible that he had the most ammo or clips for this gun. I don't know. But I don't think you can say he "chose" it because it was the most lethal.

thunderfan

12-19-2012, 03:03 PM

Except he has to STOP TO RELOAD.

Guess when they tackled Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson.

If Assault Rifles dont change anything, then WHY DO THE PSYCHOS KEEP USING ASSAULT RIFLES?

Have you ever shot a semi auto pistol? Dude coulda had 30 magazines on a belt. Any halfway competent gun operator can reload and chamber a semi auto pistol in 3-5 seconds, tops. Besides, a guy can buy 30 rd magazines for, say, a Glock. If you're a sicko going around reeling shots off at point blank, it doesn't matter if you've got a 9mm pistol or an AR-15 or any other gun you want to mention.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 03:04 PM

what's your point? are you saying he couldn't have done similar damage with the Glock and Sig?

Why didnt he though? If theyre the same (as youre implying) why did he go with the assault rifle.

Occums razor: Because its easier to do more damage with an assault rifle.

Drachen

12-19-2012, 03:06 PM

There were 3 (or 4?) guns that his mom had. He took them. Out of the three, he went with the AR-15. We have no idea why. It's possible that this is what he's seen most in the movies or video games. Or it's possible that he had the most ammo or clips for this gun. I don't know. But I don't think you can say he "chose" it because it was the most lethal.

The point was that the mass killers tell us that assault weapons are the most lethal/dangerous/etc by choosing them every time.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 03:06 PM

Have you ever shot a semi auto pistol? Dude coulda had 30 magazines on a belt. Any halfway competent gun operator can reload and chamber a semi auto pistol in 3-5 seconds, tops. Besides, a guy can buy 30 rd magazines for, say, a Glock.

Would YOU rather face THIS kid with an assault rifle or a glocK?

thunderfan

12-19-2012, 03:06 PM

Why didnt he though? If theyre the same (as youre implying) why did he go with the assault rifle.

Occums razor: Because its easier to do more damage with an assault rifle.

Tell me how an AR-15 is more lethal at point blank range than a 9mm with hollow points...? It's not.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 03:06 PM

The point was that the mass killers tell us that assault weapons are the most lethal/dangerous/etc by choosing them every time.

Exactly.

Again, gun advocates have to pretend to be stupid. They pretend to not understand why assault rifles are more lethal, yet they buy assault rifles because THEY KNOW theyre more lethal.

The truth is they just really dont want to give up their guns.

The car analogies get worse and worse.

thunderfan

12-19-2012, 03:07 PM

Would YOU rather face THIS kid with an assault rifle or a glocK?

Hypothetically, if I'm unarmed and he's at point blank range? I don't give a shit. I won't be in pain long regardless.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 03:08 PM

Hypothetically, if I'm unarmed and he's at point blank range? I don't give a shit. I won't be in pain long regardless.

Dont dodge the question.

If you were in Colorado theater or this school, would you rather the psycho have semis or an assault rifle?

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 03:10 PM

Tell me how an AR-15 is more lethal at point blank range than a 9mm with hollow points...? It's not.

If it isnt any more lethal, then why should anyone care if they were outlawed?

I mean, if a 9mm is the equivalent, then who cares?

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 03:14 PM

Why didnt he though? If theyre the same (as youre implying) why did he go with the assault rifle.

Occums razor: Because its easier to do more damage with an assault rifle.

what the fuck???? :lol Occum's Razor? Applied to someone who is batshit crazy????

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 03:16 PM

Dont dodge the question.

If you were in Colorado theater or this school, would you rather the psycho have semis or an assault rifle?

If I'm stuck in a small classroom with the guy and he's trying to shoot me, I want him to be holding the AR-15.

thunderfan

12-19-2012, 03:21 PM

Dont dodge the question.

If you were in Colorado theater or this school, would you rather the psycho have semis or an assault rifle?

It honestly wouldn't matter in those situations. Now, if the guy doesn't have extra mags for either one, I'll say the pistol, simply because he'll run out of ammo quicker. Besides round count, he's really no more lethal, IMO, with an AR-15 than he is with a 9mm pistol. However, using the pistol is not going to limit the amount of rounds he's going to fire off, unless he has 1 loaded factory magazine..but what nutcase does that? Now, if he's in a tower somewhere picking people off from 50 yards or something, we're talking about something totally different. A pistol is obviously not all that lethal from 50 yards vs a long gun

Wild Cobra

12-19-2012, 03:41 PM

Dont dodge the question.

If you were in Colorado theater or this school, would you rather the psycho have semis or an assault rifle?
What type of question is that?

An assault rifle is an automatic rifle. They require a special license to own one. I think you mean "Assault Weapon." An assault weapon is a semi-automatic weapon as well. They just looks cooler than most.

Shastafarian

12-19-2012, 03:57 PM

But you are asking for a form of proof. Guns were never illegal in this country. If they were, then you'd have a good question when you ask "why should they be legal?".Do you think you're a lawyer or something? I'm asking for a justification of a lethal weapon's legality. When something has the purpose of inflicting damage or killing, there should be an accompanying justification for it be available to citizens not professionally trained in its use.

Guns are not dangerous. :lol

I need to know your age range. I've debated a guy who used similar misconceptions as you and it turned out he was 16 years old and knew nothing of the terms he was applying. A knife is far more dangerous than a gun. It's always loaded. You bump a knife you could get cut. You can bump a gun and nothing happens. Guns are instruments that enable the user to exert deadly force on a target of his/her choosing. It's the choosing part that's dangerous if it's done improperly, as was the case in Connecticut. Until you can level out your hyperbolic terminology, discussion with you on this is going to go no where it hasn't already gone. How old are you? The CHOOSING is dangerous. Oh my god that was actually one of the best pieces of bullshit I have read here. A knife is more dangerous because it's always loaded! Brilliant. I'm literally standing up clapping.

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 04:02 PM

Do you think you're a lawyer or something?

Well, I ain't passed the Bar but I know a little bit...

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:06 PM

Bull SHIT.

If assault rifles arent legal, his mother doesnt buy one.

Ok, why haven't you made them illegal?

Unless this extremely bizarre and introverted kid has connections in a military black market, its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that he would have been able to get these weapons.

So he could not get a semi-auto rifle or two semi-auto handguns or the shotgun? Really? Military black market? lol

Thats not powerless. Thats systematically eliminating the availability of a lethal weapon to the general public.

You are powerless to eliminate anything of the sort. I dare you to prove me wrong.

The truth is, youre just incredibly selfish. All you care about is that you get to keep your guns, in spite of the fact that 20 kids got murdered. Youre just too chicken shit to admit it.

I have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I want to keep my Constitutional rights. I am not afraid to admit that.

I hope they take away your guns and i hope you cry like the pussy that you are when they do it.
Hope is all you have. You're powerless to effect change.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:07 PM

what the fuck???? :lol Occum's Razor? Applied to someone who is batshit crazy????

Umm....No.

Not to the shooter...to someone trying to determine why he used an assault rifle (YOU). Occums Razor says the most simplest explanation is probably correct. So dont over-complicate things as to his motives for using the assault rifle.

He used it because he wanted to kill a lot of people and thats the most lethal weapon he had.

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:09 PM

Do you think you're a lawyer or something? I'm asking for a justification of a lethal weapon's legality. When something has the purpose of inflicting damage or killing, there should be an accompanying justification for it be available to citizens not professionally trained in its use.

The framers of the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court disagree.

:lol
How old are you? The CHOOSING is dangerous. Oh my god that was actually one of the best pieces of bullshit I have read here. A knife is more dangerous because it's always loaded! Brilliant. I'm literally standing up clapping.

When it comes to the technicality of the term "dangerous", a sharp object is inherently more dangerous than a blunt one. For example, I am more dangerous than you.

Clipper Nation

12-19-2012, 04:09 PM

Occam's fucking Razor? Really? The simplest and best solution would have been for him to seek help instead of shooting a bunch of little kids, so your argument here is a failure....

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:10 PM

Dont dodge the question.

If you were in Colorado theater or this school, would you rather the psycho have semis or an assault rifle?

Assault rifles are semis. Share more of your brilliance.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:10 PM

So he could not get a semi-auto rifle or two semi-auto handguns or the shotgun? Really? Military black market? lol

No, he could not get these weapons on the black market. I can say with 99.9% confidence that this introverted, mentally unbalanced kid had absolutely ZERO ACCESS to the black market for military weapons in Newport Connnecticut.

In fact, if "mom" didnt have any of these weapons, Im pretty sure 20 six year old kids would still be alive today.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:11 PM

Assault rifles are semis.

You'll do ANYTHING except answer the question.

Okay, would you rather face someone with an AR-15 or a glock?

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:11 PM

No, he could not get these weapons on the black market. I can say with 99.9% confidence that this introverted, mentally unbalanced kid had absolutely ZERO ACCESS to the black market for military weapons in Newport Connnecticut.

In fact, if "mom" didnt have any of these weapons, Im pretty sure 20 six year old kids would still be alive today.
Semiauto handguns are not assault rifles, nor is the shotgun.

You're batting 1.000

Shastafarian

12-19-2012, 04:12 PM

The framers of the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court disagree.Really? Because they have given justifications :rollin I'm not here to educate you though.

When it comes to the technicality of the term "dangerous", a sharp object is inherently more dangerous than a blunt one. For example, I am more dangerous than you.
You do think you're a lawyer.

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:12 PM

You'll do ANYTHING except answer the question.

Okay, would you rather face someone with an AR-15 or a glock?

Depends on the situation. Either will kill me if I was afraid of guns and didn't have my own.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:12 PM

Occam's fucking Razor? Really? The simplest and best solution would have been for him to seek help instead of shooting a bunch of little kids, so your argument here is a failure....

You too dont seem to understand that Im not applying occums razor to his action, but to the absurd arguments being given as to why he chose the assault rifle.

Its because youre an idiot.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:13 PM

Depends on the situation. Either will kill me if I was afraid of guns and didn't have my own.

Dodge. Dodge. Dodge.

You REALLY are a pussy.

Game. Set. Match.

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:14 PM

Really? Because they have given justifications :rollin I'm not here to educate you though.

No, they haven't given justifications. They have only upheld the 2nd Amendment and interpreted law to determine if violates the BoR. They don't need to give justification for the BoR.

You do think you're a lawyer.
Compared to you, I am Perry fucking Mason.

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:14 PM

Dodge. Dodge. Dodge.

You REALLY are a pussy.

Game. Set. Match.
Ask a legit question. I dare you.

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:16 PM

Umm....No.

Not to the shooter...to someone trying to determine why he used an assault rifle (YOU). Occums Razor says the most simplest explanation is probably correct. So dont over-complicate things as to his motives for using the assault rifle.

He used it because he wanted to kill a lot of people and thats the most lethal weapon he had.

Occam's razor says do not unnecessarily multiply entities. All else being equal, the simplest solution should be checked first, it has nothing to do with probability of it being correct. There's also some subjectivity on the term "simplest" in terms of just accepting a statement.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:16 PM

No, they haven't given justifications. They have only upheld the 2nd Amendment and interpreted law to determine if violates the BoR. They don't need to give justification for the BoR.

Compared to you, I am Perry fucking Mason.

No, you just deflect because you know youre in the wrong.

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:18 PM

No, you just deflect because you know youre in the wrong.

Because you say so?

If you're so sure I'm wrong, why can't you illustrate it better than you are? Semi's or assault rifles? really?

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 04:18 PM

Umm....No.

Not to the shooter...to someone trying to determine why he used an assault rifle (YOU). Occums Razor says the most simplest explanation is probably correct. So dont over-complicate things as to his motives for using the assault rifle.

He used it because he wanted to kill a lot of people and thats the most lethal weapon he had.

So to determine why a crazy person picked the AR-15 over the handguns, we simple need to apply Occum's Razor. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:19 PM

Ask a legit question. I dare you.

I dont give a shit anymore. Youve shown your true colors.

I will vote for a ban an semis, assault rifles etc. Just about anything besides revolvers and and hunting rifles. But given the chance, I'd ban those too.

You can vote how you want, but youve proven (again) by playing dumb that you know youre in the wrong.

Shastafarian

12-19-2012, 04:19 PM

No, they haven't given justifications. They have only upheld the 2nd Amendment and interpreted law to determine if violates the BoR. They don't need to give justification for the BoR. Whatever you say

Compared to you, I am Perry fucking Mason.I guess you're old.

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:20 PM

Whatever you say

I guess you're old.

If you mean my parents don't give me a monthly allowance, you'd be correct.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:22 PM

Because you say so?

If you're so sure I'm wrong, why can't you illustrate it better than you are? Semi's or assault rifles? really?

Yes, its common to distinguish between revolvers and semi-automatic HANDGUNS by saying "semis" instead "semi-automatic-handguns". No one says "semis" for assault rifles.

Once again, your deflection just proves you have no argument. It doesnt work on me. I dont give a shit. Ban them all!

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 04:22 PM

I dont give a shit anymore. Youve shown your true colors.

I will vote for a ban an semis, assault rifles etc.

even though you really don't have a grasp on what they are.
Let me guess...you voted Obama...

Shastafarian

12-19-2012, 04:23 PM

:lol Can you go respond to my question on your eugenics-reminiscent statement in the other thread

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:28 PM

I did. Did you do the research I asked?

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:29 PM

even though you really don't have a grasp on what they are.
Let me guess...you voted Obama...

Ive fired M16 in semi and 3 round burst mode when i was in the military, thanks. Revolvers have less moving parts than "semi automatic handguns" but theyre also considered "semi" as you dont have to manually put another bullet in the chamber.Fully automatic machine guns require no manual loading of the chamber or pulling the trigger for additional firings.

But again, I dont give a shit. Its just deflection.

Ban them all as far as I care.

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:31 PM

Yes, its common to distinguish between revolvers and semi-automatic HANDGUNS by saying "semis" instead "semi-automatic-handguns". No one says "semis" for assault rifles.

Once again, your deflection just proves you have no argument. It doesnt work on me. I dont give a shit. Ban them all!

Yes they do. The term "semi" to a gun savvy person means semiauto. It does not mean handgun. The action of the assault rifle is the same semi-automatic movement used in handguns. The .223 is a smaller round than a 9mm, but it's faster. A .45ACP is much larger than a .223 or NATO 5.56mm.

You really have no idea what you're even talking about, do you? Go hook up your Xbox and start COD and learn more about guns.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:34 PM

Yes they do. The term "semi" to a gun savvy person means semiauto. It does not mean handgun. The action of the assault rifle is the same semi-automatic movement used in handguns. The .223 is a smaller round than a 9mm, but it's faster. A .45ACP is much larger than a .223 or NATO 5.56mm.

You really have no idea what you're even talking about, do you? Go hook up your Xbox and start COD and learn more about guns.

:lol

Youre a fucking idiot.

And again, I dont care. Ban them all!

I hope you scream victimization when they take em away! :lol

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:34 PM

Ive fired M16 in semi and 3 round burst mode when i was in the military, thanks. Revolvers have less moving parts than "semi automatic handguns" but theyre also considered "semi" as you dont have to manually put another bullet in the chamber.Fully automatic machine guns require no manual loading of the chamber or pulling the trigger for additional firings.

But again, I dont give a shit. Its just deflection.

Ban them all as far as I care.
No, you're wrong. Revolvers are not considered semi. They are classified completely different.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:36 PM

No, you're wrong. Revolvers are not considered semi. They are classified completely different.

Okay, you just exposed you actually know very, very little.

But (once again), I dont care.

Ban them all! :lol

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:37 PM

Okay, you just exposed you actually know very, very little.

A semi-automatic pistol is a type of handgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun) which uses a single chamber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_%28weaponry%29) and barrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_barrel), with a mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm) powered by the previous shot to load a fresh cartridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_%28firearms%29) into the chamber. One round is fired each time the trigger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_%28firearms%29) of a semi-automatic pistol is pulled.
A revolver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver), which uses multiple chambers and a single barrel, and a derringer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derringer), which uses multiple chambers and multiple barrels, also fire one round for trigger pull, but achieve this in different ways and as such are not classified as being semi-automatic.

Obviously you've never taken a handgun training class. If you had a CHL you would see the SA or the NSA (revolver). It depends on what you use to qualify.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:39 PM

A semi-automatic pistol is a type of handgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun) which uses a single chamber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_%28weaponry%29) and barrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_barrel), with a mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm) powered by the previous shot to load a fresh cartridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_%28firearms%29) into the chamber. One round is fired each time the trigger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_%28firearms%29) of a semi-automatic pistol is pulled.
A revolver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver), which uses multiple chambers and a single barrel, and a derringer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derringer), which uses multiple chambers and multiple barrels, also fire one round for trigger pull, but achieve this in different ways and as such are not classified as being semi-automatic.

You are a fucking idiot.

Semi- is a Latin prefix to a verb, noun, or adjective meaning "half"

Semi-automatic means "half automatic". Meaning you dont have to manually load another round into the chamber. Thus, revolvers are also considered "semis" even though they have less moving parts.

Again, though. I dont care.

Ban. Them. All.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:41 PM

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:41 PM

You are a fucking idiot.

Semi- is a Latin prefix to a verb, noun, or adjective meaning "half"

Semi-automatic means "half automatic". Meaning you dont have to manually load another round into the chamber. Thus, revolvers are also considered "semis" even though they have less moving parts.

Again, though. I dont care.

Ban. Them. All.

Prove that with something other than ad nauseum claims.

I've showed you differently.

Obviously you care.

We know what you didn't do in the military, that's for sure.

Wild Cobra

12-19-2012, 04:42 PM

You'll do ANYTHING except answer the question.

Okay, would you rather face someone with an AR-15 or a glock?
The AR15.

The Glock can be moved quicker. Less mass...

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:42 PM

How bout when the psychos start using something besides semi-automatic-handguns and assault rifles, THEN we'll discuss banning those as well.

For now, lets stick with whats actually being used to slaughter school children and movie-goers, yes?

No. When you get your terminology and facts straight we can actually have a meaningful discussion. Until then you're just engaging in ignorant ranting.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:44 PM

Prove that with something other than ad nauseum claims.

I've showed you differently.

Obviously you care.

We know what you didn't do in the military, that's for sure.

I really dont.

Like i said, lets start by banning the guns being used to slaughter school children. When they switch to something else, we'll ban those too.

Koolaid_Man

12-19-2012, 04:44 PM

No. When you get your terminology and facts straight we can actually have a meaningful discussion. Until then you're just engaging in ignorant ranting.

You crazy fuckers still in here arguing over this shit...it' not that serious fellas..drop it...none of you are that important anyway...I declare the winner of this debate whomever the majority decides...

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:45 PM

I really dont.

Like i said, lets start by banning the guns being used to slaughter school children. When they switch to something else, we'll ban those too.

No, you're powerless to do anything, just like your team.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:45 PM

No. When you get your terminology and facts straight we can actually have a meaningful discussion. Until then you're just engaging in ignorant ranting.

Let start by banning all assault weapons.

Hers a definition for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 04:45 PM

Revolvers have less moving parts than "semi automatic handguns" but theyre also considered "semi" as you dont have to manually put another bullet in the chamber.

wait...is this like my Brazilian thing? you can't be that stupid.

Wild Cobra

12-19-2012, 04:46 PM

Because you say so?

If you're so sure I'm wrong, why can't you illustrate it better than you are? Semi's or assault rifles? really?
Again, "assault rifle" means full auto. The terminology used for semiautomatic military looking rifles is "assault weapon."

Weapon. Not rifle.

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:46 PM

You crazy fuckers still in here arguing over this shit...it' not that serious fellas..drop it...none of you are that important anyway...I declare the winner of this debate whomever the majority decides...

There's been no debate, just reality 101 and I am the professor.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:46 PM

No, you're powerless to do anything, just like your team.

Actually we're not. Theyre going to pass much stricter gun laws in January and I'll vote against anyone who argues against them.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:48 PM

LOL:

Semi-automatic, functionality meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.[5]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/09/what_is_an_assault_weapon.html

Game. Set. Match.

DMC SUCKS!!

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 04:49 PM

Actually we're not. Theyre going to pass much stricter gun laws in January and I'll vote against anyone who argues against them.

I think you've been so busy with this schtick that you haven't had time to be Avante today.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:50 PM

wait...is this like my Brazilian thing? you can't be that stupid.

Another clueless gun advocate who doesnt even know what "semi-automatic" means.

Educate yourself and come back.

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:51 PM

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:51 PM

I think you've been so busy with this schtick that you haven't had time to be Avante today.

Ad hominem attacks.

Weapon of choice for gun advocates with no leg to stand on.

cantthinkofanything

12-19-2012, 04:52 PM

Ad hominem attacks.

Weapon of choice for gun advocates with no leg to stand on.

LOL. Carry on sir. Consider me trolled.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:52 PM

Wasn't aware a revolver could eject a spent shell.

Is the spent shell casing in the chamber when the next round is fired?

Game. Set. Match. Bitch!!!

This is like shooting fish in a barrel!

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:54 PM

Again, "assault rifle" means full auto. The terminology used for semiautomatic military looking rifles is "assault weapon."

Weapon. Not rifle.

He used the term "assault rifle". I knew what he meant.

Here's what constitutes an "assault weapon"

Assault rifles vs. Assault weapons In United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) politics and law, an assault weapon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon) is a variety of semi-automatic firearms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm) that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban), which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29) and two or more of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_%28firearm%29)
a pistol grip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_grip) that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor) or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher

The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun), which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968) and the Firearm Owners Protection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act) of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#cite_note-9)

Those bayonet lugs and flash hiders are dangerous things, never mind that folding stock. I shiver to even think about it. Grenade launchers? WOW....

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:55 PM

Is the spent shell casing in the chamber when the next round is fired?

Game. Set. Match. Bitch!!!

This is like shooting fish in a barrel!
Yes. The chamber revolves. Also, the term "ejects" is referring to the weapon ejecting the shell, and the shell is still in line with the barrel after firing until pulling the trigger again. It does not move away before then.

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 04:57 PM

Those bayonet lugs and flash hiders are dangerous things, never mind that folding stock. I shiver to even think about it. Grenade launchers? WOW....

So you agree then that there are weapons too dangerous for public ownership?

Then its just a question of "whats too dangerous"?

Looks like Assault rifles and larger magazines are going to be added to the list in January (and Im all for it).

Wild Cobra

12-19-2012, 04:58 PM

Like I said. Assault weapons just look cooler...

DMC

12-19-2012, 04:59 PM

So you agree then that there are weapons too dangerous for public ownership?

No one should be allowed to own a gun with a folding stock,. That's just crazy.

Then its just a question of "whats too dangerous"?

I think everyone knows by now the answer to that question, and it has something to do with you and a buffet line.

Looks like Assault rifles and larger magazines are going to be added to the list in January (and Im all for it).

Me too. I have a shit load I want to sell when the price goes up.

thunderfan

12-19-2012, 04:59 PM

Is the spent shell casing in the chamber when the next round is fired?

!

Yes

da_suns_fan

12-19-2012, 05:01 PM

No one should be allowed to own a gun with a folding stock,. That's just crazy.

I think everyone knows by now the answer to that question, and it has something to do with you and a buffet line.

Me too. I have a shit load I want to sell when the price goes up.

Looks like its going to happen:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/gun-restriction-polls_n_2331578.html

Shastafarian

12-19-2012, 05:04 PM

Watching these guys flip out is gonna be funny

DMC

12-19-2012, 07:19 PM

Watching these guys flip out is gonna be funny

From a PM is sent 4 days ago:

"Nothing will happen other than some placebo bills that won't pass. Those that might will be magazine capacity and evil features on "high powered assault weapons". Nothing that happened in Conn will actually be affected by that, because the weapons won't even fall into that category, but dumb ass libs will feel they've achieved something and, since they don't know existing laws or anything about guns, they won't know they didn't get anything done" -The Prophet, DMC

Shastafarian

12-19-2012, 07:31 PM

From a PM is sent 4 days ago:

"Nothing will happen other than some placebo bills that won't pass. Those that might will be magazine capacity and evil features on "high powered assault weapons". Nothing that happened in Conn will actually be affected by that, because the weapons won't even fall into that category, but dumb ass libs will feel they've achieved something and, since they don't know existing laws or anything about guns, they won't know they didn't get anything done" -The Prophet, DMC

:tu

DMC

12-19-2012, 07:53 PM

btw, Conn already has an assault weapons ban in place.

Shastafarian

12-19-2012, 07:59 PM

btw, Conn already has an assault weapons ban in place.

That's great. Maybe that ban saved the lives of more teachers and children at Sandy Hook.

rascal

12-20-2012, 02:58 PM

btw, Conn already has an assault weapons ban in place.

What kind of ban is it when Nancy Lanza was able to acquire an assault weapon?

Take the lead from Japan. No mass shootings, very hard to get a gun in Japan.

cantthinkofanything

12-20-2012, 03:19 PM

What kind of ban is it when Nancy Lanza was able to acquire an assault weapon?

Take the lead from Japan. No mass shootings, very hard to get a gun in Japan.

there's no mass shootings in China either or North Korea. we should be more like them.

ALVAREZ6

12-21-2012, 08:24 PM

4 dead (including shooter) in a PA shooting on a highway, 100 miles east of Pittsburgh, today. WTF is going on? :wtf

Where does the right to bear arms stop btw...of course it's the human who pulls the trigger, but why can't citizens who pass background checks have tanks and missiles???? After all, to protect from a tyrannical gov, would need more than guns, missiles and nukes would be useful tbh. And of course, it's the human who presses the button to send the missile.

I understand a lot of the arguments from the pro-gun crowd, and I go back and forth on this issue myself (naturally as a libertarian), but I do think trying to limit access to high capacity mags is worth a shot (or similar laws). My main issue is that most humans are a combination of dumb, lazy, and negligent. I don't really care about the black market and gangbangers, they're all mostly killing each other anyway, so they can have their guns for all I care. If we can limit gun access to your average, dumb, negligent American, I'm all for it. There have been plenty of incidents just in the past few weeks that show how stupid people are with their guns... a western PA man shot (and I believe killed) his 9 year old cousin who was in costume at a Halloween party. The man supposedly thought she (cousin) was a skunk (not sure I've ever seen a 4-foot skunk). Another recent case (within past 2 weeks), a man getting into his car with his 5 year old son in a parking lot laid his pistol on the dash board, he thought the gun was unloaded, yet setting it down accidentally caused the pistol to go off and kill his 5 year old son. The man thought it was empty, had checked the clip previously but did not make sure there wasn't a bullet in the chamber.

Of course we all know about Adam Lanza's retarded mom who clearly had no control of the situation, and I'm certain a significantly large percentage of law abiding gun owners are negligent when it comes to their guns. It just has to be, a great amount people are when it comes to their everyday lives.

I don't know, I basically don't trust your average person to own guns. If as a government/country we're going to hold the mentality that it's the human that pulls the trigger, why can't we own tanks and missiles?

Wild Cobra

12-21-2012, 10:33 PM

In gun free zones, only the criminals carry guns...

ChumpDumper

12-21-2012, 10:35 PM

Slogans will save us!

DMC

12-22-2012, 05:45 PM

What kind of ban is it when Nancy Lanza was able to acquire an assault weapon?

Take the lead from Japan. No mass shootings, very hard to get a gun in Japan.
They got nuked twice. No thanks.

DMC

12-22-2012, 05:46 PM

Slogans will save us!

Ironic response

DMC

12-22-2012, 05:47 PM

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 05:52 PM

Ironic responseInasmuch as it is a slogan of sorts, I guess.

Unless you meant something else. If you did, please explain.

rascal

12-22-2012, 05:54 PM

They got nuked twice. No thanks.

Japan has gun crime under control. Take the lead from them on gun crime. That is what we are talking about not WW2.

rascal

12-22-2012, 05:56 PM

In gun free zones, only the criminals carry guns...

No the police also carry guns.

DMC

12-22-2012, 06:00 PM

What kind of ban is it when Nancy Lanza was able to acquire an assault weapon?

Take the lead from Japan. No mass shootings, very hard to get a gun in Japan.

ASSAULT WEAPON
"Assault weapon" means any one of the following:
1. Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 Carbien type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 Series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; USI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol.
2. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (1) or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (1) may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
3. Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) that meets the following criteria:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. a folding or telescopic stock;
ii. a pistol grip;
iii. a bayonet mount;
iv. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
v. a grenade launcher.
(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
ii. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;
iii. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
iv. a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
v. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
(C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:
i. a folding or telescoping stock;
ii. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
iii. a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and
iv. an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
4. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3), or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3), may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
Source: General Statutes § 53-202a (a) (applies to §§ 53-202b -- 202k).
Commentary: The term "assault weapon" does not include any firearm modified to render it permanently inoperable. General Statutes § 53-202a (b).

Her weapon didn't meet that definition. That's what happens when stupid ass liberals define a gun cosmetically instead of functionally. Just remove the offending cosmetic features and you have a legal firearm, no longer an assault weapon. Whoa... what's that? So the semi-auto still fires without the pistol grip and the folding stock? No way.

DMC

12-22-2012, 06:04 PM

Japan has gun crime under control. Take the lead from them on gun crime. That is what we are talking about not WW2.

They were nuked, told they cannot have a real military, we occupy them.

You should move there, report back your findings. Let us know how the radiation that "didn't happen" is going. Yeah, they are honest with their gun control stats.

DMC

12-22-2012, 06:05 PM

Inasmuch as it is a slogan of sorts, I guess.

Unless you meant something else. If you did, please explain.

The 1st one.

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 06:05 PM

The 1st one.I don't think it's going to catch on tbh.

Jacob1983

12-22-2012, 11:11 PM

You want America to be like China and North Korea? So you want to watch state run television and news? You want to be able to have your access to media, art, and literature restricted? You sure you thought this through?

Wild Cobra

12-22-2012, 11:37 PM

No the police also carry guns.
And it takes how long for them to respond?

TDMVPDPOY

12-30-2012, 05:48 PM

one of the survivors is suing the govt for 100m for unforeseeable protection hahahahaha...fkn lame argument

2pac > Kobe

12-30-2012, 06:59 PM

Someone make a sandy hook shooting faked in studio thread

Wild Cobra

12-31-2012, 03:56 AM

Someone make a sandy hook shooting faked in studio thread
Please....

Don't give Cosmored any ideas.

DesignatedT

01-15-2013, 01:56 AM

Someone make a sandy hook shooting faked in studio thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6fvFVVEG5Q&feature=youtu.be

TSA

01-15-2013, 02:35 AM

ChumpDumper

01-15-2013, 03:36 AM

I'm not going to watch that video and stopped following the Sandy Hook tragedy about a week after it happened, but did they ever confirm what guns were used to do all of the shootings? I've heard rumors the AR15 wasn't even used, and it was just handguns. Is what I heard bullshit?Yes, it's bullshit.

The AR-15 was the main weapon. He left a shotgun in the car and used one of two handguns to off himself.

TSA

01-15-2013, 03:41 AM

Yes, it's bullshit.

The AR-15 was the main weapon. He left a shotgun in the car and used one of two handguns to off himself.Thanks. Did not want to have to wade through all the bullshit to find that myself, I tried and found he also may have had a rocket launcher. I HEART MEDIA.

Joseph Kony

01-15-2013, 04:08 PM

I haven't read this whole thread so this might have already been posted.

This is stuff I found on another site.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/148632-woman-claims-her-daughters-photo-used-sandy-hook-shooting-victim.html#post1061346686

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMuB2mLhqeU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfxhuapWOKY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oleV3UEiR78

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/148646-sandy-hook-shooting-pre-planned.html#post1061346655

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhpN4WWUuPc

god damn, a bunch of children are shot to death and you're running around claiming conspiracy? fuck you

Wild Cobra

01-15-2013, 04:42 PM

The AR15 is just a scarier weapon and incites more fear, because of TV and ignorance. He would have been far better off with Glock-17's with 33 round magazines.

rascal

01-16-2013, 06:43 PM

The AR15 is just a scarier weapon and incites more fear, because of TV and ignorance. He would have been far better off with Glock-17's with 33 round magazines.

I saw where some have said body parts were blown off so no the rifle was not just scarier because of TV and ignorance, it was efficiently deadly.

ChumpDumper

01-16-2013, 06:46 PM

The AR15 is just a scarier weapon and incites more fear, because of TV and ignorance. He would have been far better off with Glock-17's with 33 round magazines.Future mass killers will be wise to heed your advice.

mavs>spurs

01-16-2013, 06:46 PM

yeah a .40 handgun will do that to a small child too, they said when the story broke the rifle was found in the car they just made that shit up about him using it

rascal

01-16-2013, 06:58 PM

yeah a .40 handgun will do that to a small child too, they said when the story broke the rifle was found in the car they just made that shit up about him using it

No , he had another gun( a shotgun) in the car and used the AR-15 as ChumpDumper said and a handgun on himself. I don't know why this is so confusing for some people.

mavs>spurs

01-16-2013, 06:58 PM

probably because the media initially reported that they found an ar15 in the car and 2 pistols on him?

rascal

01-16-2013, 07:01 PM

probably because the media initially reported that they found an ar15 in the car and 2 pistols on him?

And then what did they say? Can't you figure out that the early reports were incorrect.

They also said Ryan Lanza was the shooter initially. I guess you still believe it was Ryan Lanza.

DMC

01-16-2013, 08:14 PM

My threads are so popular.

DMC

01-16-2013, 08:14 PM

Future serial killers will be wise to heed your advice.

Serial killers? Didn't know any were using the AR15.

TSA

01-16-2013, 09:04 PM

The new Bushmasters are garbage. Lol @ them being banned by name in NY.

TSA

01-16-2013, 09:07 PM

If he had used a Mini14 instead would there have been such an outrage? Mini14's don't look "scary" because of the wood stock but are just as capable and can carry the same capacity as an AR15.

da_suns_fan

01-16-2013, 09:53 PM

The AR15 is just a scarier weapon and incites more fear, because of TV and ignorance. He would have been far better off with Glock-17's with 33 round magazines.

Nonsense.

Fort hood Shooter was taken down when he stopped to load his third fifteen round magazine.

Jared Lee Loughner (Tucson) was taken down when he stopped to reload.

Dark Knight Shooter didnt stop until his AR15 jammed (he had a 90 round magazine). Otherwise more people would be dead.

The truth is people like you and DMC have to pretend to be morons and not understand that an assault rifle with a 90 round magazine is more lethal than a hand gun simply because you can get so many more shots off without reloading.

Again, though, you all pretend to be morons. You cant just admit that you dont want to give up your guns and you dont give a shit about shootings because it makes you look bad.

TSA

01-16-2013, 10:00 PM

Nonsense.

Fort hood Shooter was taken down when he stopped to load his third fifteen round magazine.

Jared Lee Loughner (Tucson) was taken down when he stopped to reload.

Dark Knight Shooter didnt stop until his AR15 jammed (he had a 90 round magazine). Otherwise more people would be dead.

The truth is people like you and DMC have to pretend to be morons and not understand that an assault rifle with a 90 round magazine is more lethal than a hand gun simply because you can get so many more shots off without reloading.

Again, though, you all pretend to be morons. You cant just admit that you dont want to give up your guns and you dont give a shit about shootings because it makes you look bad.

Why'd you leave out the VT shooter who had nothing higher than a 10 round mag?