Gun possession. yes or no?

[spanner1751]

Originally Posted by kmarei

i can honestly say if it wasn't for the NRA paying large amounts of money to politicians guns would have been banned here many years ago

Exactly. That's why I'm a life member.

[smyles]

So apparently the Col shooter was wearing a combat vest, not 'body armor', as widely reported. Kinda adds fuel to 'what if' discussion.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by kmarei

i can honestly say if it wasn't for the NRA paying large amounts of money to politicians
guns would have been banned here many years ago

i still fail to see the logic
we allow people to own guns because it might protect them from bad guys
and yet now almost on a monthly basis we lose innocent people that are killed by some idiot who got a gun LEGALLY from a STORE. but that's ok, because maybe one day a good guy gets to use his gun to kill a bad guy
that, to me at least, sounds like a losing proposition

i think its a crying shame we lost those 12 people
and to me stopping guns from being sold legally is well worth it
you want to protect yourself get a stun gun or some other defensive weapon
but owning an assault weapon?
seriously?

There are so many wrong things in this post, I don't even know where to begin.

The type of person who will break the law by murdering people will likely also break the law by purchasing a gun (if they were banned) or building an explosive, this has already been established. Banning gun sales won't stop people from getting them, especially when there are so many already in the system. That is really the bottom line.

[.b0link]

The solution finally came to me today at work....

[kevinbahnz]

Originally Posted by .b0link

The solution finally came to me today at work....

that was on tv just the other day.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by kmarei

i can honestly say if it wasn't for the NRA paying large amounts of money to politicians
guns would have been banned here many years ago

i still fail to see the logic
we allow people to own guns because it might protect them from bad guys
and yet now almost on a monthly basis we lose innocent people that are killed by some idiot who got a gun LEGALLY from a STORE. but that's ok, because maybe one day a good guy gets to use his gun to kill a bad guy
that, to me at least, sounds like a losing proposition

i think its a crying shame we lost those 12 people
and to me stopping guns from being sold legally is well worth it
you want to protect yourself get a stun gun or some other defensive weapon
but owning an assault weapon?
seriously?

What happens when someone attacks a dozen old people with pacemakers, and takes them out with a stun gun?


You fail to see the logic, because you don't understand the term 'logic'

[kevinbahnz]

on another not , NYC is trying to ban sugary drinks over 16 oz.

[f30nynj]

Logic!!

[dasReaper]

Originally Posted by kevinbahnz

on another not , NYC is trying to ban sugary drinks over 16 oz.

As much as I like Bloomberg as a business man, I can't stand most his personal/political views.

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

What happens when someone attacks a dozen old people with pacemakers, and takes them out with a stun gun?


You fail to see the logic, because you don't understand the term 'logic'

are you seriously trying to equate stun guns with assualt weapons?

yes i may fail to see the logic because i am not american
so i have what the rest of the world calls logic.
not what the americans call logic
a civilian buying 6000 bullets is ok with US logic

fact is the rest of the world regulates guns more than the states
and there are less homocides in those countries, per capita, than there are in the states. there is no avoiding that

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by Templar

There are so many wrong things in this post, I don't even know where to begin.

The type of person who will break the law by murdering people will likely also break the law by purchasing a gun (if they were banned) or building an explosive, this has already been established. Banning gun sales won't stop people from getting them, especially when there are so many already in the system. That is really the bottom line.

well the fact remains
that in this case, and many others, the gun was bought legally, from a regular person (not a bad guy) and he used that gun to kill innocent people
maybe, just maybe, if he could not obtain the gun legally, he might not have been able to pull this off.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by kmarei

are you seriously trying to equate stun guns with assualt weapons?

yes i may fail to see the logic because i am not american
so i have what the rest of the world calls logic.

fact is the rest of the world regulates guns more than the states
and there are less homocides in those countries, per capita, than there are in the states. there is no avoiding that

Switzerland has no formal law enforcement and arms each of its citizens, and their crime rate is virtually zero. Australia has one of the harshest gun laws, and they're at the top of crime rates.

Unless bump firing, a semi-auto assault rifle has very little edge on a handgun when firing other than accuracy/distance. People just look at an assault rifle and assume they're like the movies; only select people can obtain one like that. Quit spewing ignorance and do research.

edit: and extended mags, which I believe should be regulated.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by kmarei

well the fact remains
that in this case, and many others, the gun was bought legally, from a regular person (not a bad guy) and he used that gun to kill innocent people
maybe, just maybe, if he could not obtain the gun legally, he might not have been able to pull this off.

Yea, he wasn't a bad guy, he just shot and killed 12 people... You officially have no idea what you're talking about.

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

only select people can obtain one like that. Quit spewing ignorance and do research.

edit: and extended mags, which I believe should be regulated.

"select people" such as this mad man?
so obviously the gun control laws are messed up if some idiotn psycho case like this guy can buy 6000 bullets and that doesn't raise any flags
to me that really is ignorance

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by kmarei

"select people" such as this mad man?
so obviously the gun control laws are messed up if some idiotn psycho case like this guy can buy 6000 bullets and that doesn't raise any flags
to me that really is ignorance

You're not listening. The gun he had was a $600 bone stock AR-15 that has about the same firing rate as any semi-auto pistol. He did not have a fully-auto AR like you see in the movies. 6000 bullets is nothing when you fire a thousand per range visit and have multiple guns to fire with. Not to mention his AR jammed due to rapid trigger pull, not just pull and hold like the MOB.


Now, I do believe they should've saw the purchase and questioned it, but there are VERY many people that buy that much ammo in bulk because of the major amount of money you can save.

FF to 1 minute. It's caliber is .223, which isn't THAT big.

[Elliott@DetailAddict]

Yes. No need to elaborate.

[CollinsE90]

Biased article, regardless a win for gun owners.

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/...RhrWCM9dQ.cspx

[Inspired]

Originally Posted by kmarei

if guns don't kill people
why do some of you approve of civilians owning them?
i mean i buy a gun that doesn't kill people?

If someone wants to cause mass murder. They could of used something even more deadly than guns. Luckily he didn't strap explosives on himself and ends up killing everyone in the theater.

[dasReaper]

He built explosives that he used to booby trap his home. Building explosives like that is illegal yet he did it anyway. If someone illegally built explosives do you really think he wouldn't obtain a firearm illegally as well?

Maybe we should ban everything that produces fire. He could have trapped everyone inside the theater and burnt it to the ground... Heck even without trapping people inside just starting a fire in a crowded public place like that could have killed/wounded more people then he did with a gun.

People have the right to protect themselves. An officer who shoots at the local range once told me something that is unfortunately true. In general police don't stop crimes, they respond to crimes.

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by dasReaper

He built explosives that he used to booby trap his home. Building explosives like that is illegal yet he did it anyway. If someone illegally built explosives do you really think he wouldn't obtain a firearm illegally as well?

Maybe we should ban everything that produces fire. He could have trapped everyone inside the theater and burnt it to the ground... Heck even without trapping people inside just starting a fire in a crowded public place like that could have killed/wounded more people then he did with a gun.

People have the right to protect themselves. An officer who shoots at the local range once told me something that is unfortunately true. In general police don't stop crimes, they respond to crimes.

This post rings true. In medieval times, peasants were often locked in buildings and the whole thing was set afire. Far cheaper and more effective than rifles or hand guns.

Also, in 18 years of law enforcement, the number of crimes I have prevented is way less than the ones I have responded to.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by capriguy84

Logic!!

I would have very little problem with this.

BUT, just like with cars (and DUI, driving without/suspended, speeding, shall I go on?) it's the human part of the equation that is truly F#@Ked up and can't be controlled.

Oh, and Government CAN create jobs!!!

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

The topic at hand is "Gun Possession," you may want to read the title of the thread.

...Which falls under the umbrella of gun control. Stop being so darn difficult. You don't have to force yourself to reply.

There you go putting words in my mouth. I didn't say I'm worried about the government taking my guns--that's you only having that as your reasoning for me being wrong. Don't put me in a class with that. I said you can't punish legal gun owners because of criminals. E.G. Limit what we can buy, own, or shoot.

Keep reaching.

Which is why I asked you very simple questions, which obviously you cannot answer because your entire position would lose even more momentum. Before Holmes was a criminal, he was a legal gun owner IIRC. So if a legal gun owner turned murderer can do what he did, how was HE, he being a legal gun owner, punished by criminals before him? Obviously Holmes wasn't the first person to open fire on innocent people and his access to guns wasn't interrupted, so...