Latest Topics

[razorhead]

Hothotz, on 19 December 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

And yet you have nothing to say in response.

What do you want to hear?

I suppose we shouldn't care.  Let every stupid bastard out there have access to firearms.  As long as I have one too I shouldn't have to worry.  Right?

If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night with an assault rifle and shoots me in my sleep I suppose at least I had the ability to defend myself from the lunatic had I woken up, gotten to my gun first, and then killed him.  I guess if the nut went into my child's school and shot her, I could take solice in the fact that had I been there with my assault rifle I could have got him before he did the killing.

[Hothotz]

razorhead, on 19 December 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

What do you want to hear?

I suppose we shouldn't care.  Let every stupid bastard out there have access to firearms.  As long as I have one too I shouldn't have to worry.  Right?

If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night with an assault rifle and shoots me in my sleep I suppose at least I had the ability to defend myself from the lunatic had I woken up, gotten to my gun first, and then killed him.  I guess if the nut went into my child's school and shot her, I could take solice in the fact that had I been there with my assault rifle I could have got him before he did the killing.

If you got 15K to spend on a Assault Rifle I would expect you to lock that thing up. Those are very valuable and rare. In fact that might be why that guy is robbing you.

[razorhead]

Hothotz, on 19 December 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

If you got 15K to spend on a Assault Rifle I would expect you to lock that thing up. Those are very valuable and rare. In fact that might be why that guy is robbing you.

I really think you have the capacity to understand what I've said, you are just choosing not to respond with an intuitive counter argument.  You know what I was getting at.  Substite pistol for assault weapon if the semantics are giving you issues.  I'm done.  This reminds me of trying to talk to my ex wife.

[shamoan]

it is a horrible and sick thought, but i have a feeling that psycho could have done the exact same thing with a machete.  do we start banning machetes?  actually, he might could kill more innocent lives....think about it, a machete is a silent weapon.....there are no gunshots to warn the others of what is happening, only the screams of some children.  


if the government cannot keep millions of tons of weed off the streets, how in the hell can we expect them to control guns?  i for one would seriously consider obtaining an illegal firearm from some mexican runner if they were ever outlawed.  its not the guns its the sick s with the guns.  moreover, its a societal problem that seems unfixable.

[Hothotz]

razorhead, on 19 December 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

I really think you have the capacity to understand what I've said, you are just choosing not to respond with an intuitive counter argument.  You know what I was getting at.  Substite pistol for assault weapon if the semantics are giving you issues.  I'm done.  This reminds me of trying to talk to my ex wife.

You show your ignorance of firearms and try to justify having them regulated. You want people who purchase a firearm to go through tests which will not be done by people who want a weapon to commit a crime. We already give finger prints as well as background checks. To purchase a firearm. Two things that people with criminal intent do not do. So what can you show that would justify one more task.

[Noah]

What type of new gun laws would you find acceptable?

[Hothotz]

Noah.Dreams, on 19 December 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

What type of new gun laws would you find acceptable?

I would like to see registered Private sales/transaction. I would like to know that every gun legally sold has a face to it.

[razorhead]

Hothotz, on 19 December 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

You show your ignorance of firearms and try to justify having them regulated. You want people who purchase a firearm to go through tests which will not be done by people who want a weapon to commit a crime. We already give finger prints as well as background checks. To purchase a firearm. Two things that people with criminal intent do not do. So what can you show that would justify one more task.

The problem is you can't get a feeling for mental health issues with a fingerprint and background check.  We all know people that have conceal and carry permits that are ticking timebombs and should have never gotten one.  I can't show anything that would justify one more task, just thinking, but on the other hand the current system obviously doesn't screen them out either.

I think the argument that we would want access to the same weapon to protect ourselves would only work if there was some sort of civil war, or the unlikely zombie apocalypse.  In which case I'd be first in line to get one.  However, since most of the killings are unexpected I doubt having the same weapon would do me much good.

[cocky4ever]

Noah.Dreams, on 19 December 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

What type of new gun laws would you find acceptable?

I already asked in another thread how someone's life would be so much worse if they banned some of these weapons/mags. The most I got was "I would have to spend more money on more magazines" and "if a lot of people broke into my house I wouldn't be able to kill all of them".

I think it's more of the ideal of "this is 'Murica!!" than any real inconveniences people would face.

[shamoan]

GoldenRebel, on 18 December 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Guy kills 20 kids with a glock and sig 9mm.   Ban assault weapons.

where did you get this?  im reading on cnn that the primary weapon was the m16 variant.

http://www.cnn.com/2...guns/index.html

[Hothotz]

razorhead, on 19 December 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

The problem is you can't get a feeling for mental health issues with a fingerprint and background check.  We all know people that have conceal and carry permits that are ticking timebombs and should have never gotten one.  I can't show anything that would justify one more task, just thinking, but on the other hand the current system obviously doesn't screen them out either.

I think the argument that we would want access to the same weapon to protect ourselves would only work if there was some sort of civil war, or the unlikely zombie apocalypse.  In which case I'd be first in line to get one.  However, since most of the killings are unexpected I doubt having the same weapon would do me much good.

The shooter tried to purchase a weapon from  a sporting goods store. He was refused. Now his mother of course didn't think he was capable of doing uch of thing. And I in no way blame her for thee killings. But she knew something was not right with the kid. She should have had her guns locked up in a safe or not had any at all.

[AUskip07]

razorhead, on 19 December 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

What do you want to hear?

I suppose we shouldn't care.  Let every stupid bastard out there have access to firearms.  As long as I have one too I shouldn't have to worry.  Right?

If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night with an assault rifle and shoots me in my sleep I suppose at least I had the ability to defend myself from the lunatic had I woken up, gotten to my gun first, and then killed him.  I guess if the nut went into my child's school and shot her, I could take solice in the fact that had I been there with my assault rifle I could have got him before he did the killing.

Um  my gun is  in my night stand  chambered and  takes me maybe 3 seconds to get it and fire it.  No one breaks in with an assault rifle.    Your argument lacks logic.    You cant remove guns from our society  so taking them out of the hands of responsible people is about the worst thing you can do.

[cocky4ever]

Yall do realize that the majority of burglaries occur when the homeowner isn't there right?? So everyone saying "I have my gun easily accessible at all times" are, at the same time, saying "my gun is easily taken by anyone who breaks into my house when I'm not there"

[razorhead]

AUskip07, on 19 December 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

Um  my gun is  in my night stand  chambered and  takes me maybe 3 seconds to get it and fire it.  No one breaks in with an assault rifle.    Your argument lacks logic. You cant remove guns from our society  so taking them out of the hands of responsible people is about the worst thing you can do.

Really?  You're better than Wyatt Earp with a handgun strapped to his waist.

Uh, someone just broke into a school with one.  Whatever.  If somebody snuck into your house with a pistol and shot you in your sleep it wouldn't matter either.

[shamoan]

razorhead, on 19 December 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

The problem is you can't get a feeling for mental health issues with a fingerprint and background check.  We all know people that have conceal and carry permits that are ticking timebombs and should have never gotten one.  I can't show anything that would justify one more task, just thinking, but on the other hand the current system obviously doesn't screen them out either.

I think the argument that we would want access to the same weapon to protect ourselves would only work if there was some sort of civil war, or the unlikely zombie apocalypse.  In which case I'd be first in line to get one.  However, since most of the killings are unexpected I doubt having the same weapon would do me much good.

i agree that the mentally ill should have failsafes in place to prevent them from being able to purchase weapons (assuming they are a threat to themselves or others), however, lets not forget that HE did not purchase these weapons.  they were stolen from his mother who was the actual owner...he then proceeded to shoot his mother 4 times in the face.  point being, psychos will get their hands on guns no matter what we do.