Gunman kills 13 in New York siege

[Rob Henderson]

That is what a Totalitarian regime does. We are a Republic.

You don't take from the innocent to keep the guilty on the straight and narrow. You don't punish those who have committed no offense.

America is founded on the principles of freedom for her people. That is what I defended in the Army Infantry. When we develop the attitude that we are within our rights to strip rights from the innocent because a few abuse those rights, we deny everything that even IS America.

There are an estimated 300 MILLION firearms in this nation. How many deaths were attributed to violence with LEGAL firearms last year?

Look at the numbers. You want to punish the vast majority for the acts of a very slight minority. It doesn't make sense, sir.

So how do you suggest we prevent gun crimes from taking place? Arm the entire populace to the teeth and have them duke it out?

Rob, you seem to be a very intelligent, very intuitive, very insightful young man. You must stop listening to the ramblings of a few liberal professors attempting to scare you into believing their tripe.

Well thank you, but it's not my professors who I get these views from... It's myself. I choose my own political views.

 

[major liability]

You will never prevent all gun crimes, that is an impossibility. But you cannot punish the good people who legally own them for the actions of the bad ones, who will disregard any attempts at regulation anyways.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I never said that... I said how do you suggest we prevent gun crime from happening? That's not an all-inclusive... I just want to know the plans of pro-gun folks on how they're going to decrease the likely hood of gun crime happening.

 

[major liability]

It can't happen. The cat's been out of the bag for a long time. We can only enforce the laws that already exist. There are over a hundred million unregistered firearms in this country.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

I never said that... I said how do you suggest we prevent gun crime from happening? That's not an all-inclusive... I just want to know the plans of pro-gun folks on how they're going to decrease the likely hood of gun crime happening.

The way you make a dent in any illegal activity:

Stricter penalties for any crime that involves the use of a firearm.

But I also say that education is the bigger key here. I would wager that most gun crime occurs either from gangs or from people messed up in the head (like the VA Tech incident). We need to target the reasons people want to kill each other, not the tools they choose to do it with.

But I really foresee no way for the government to do that. They cannot solve gun crime, and they cannot protect me and mine from it. That's why I don't want them taking any steps to regulate guns - they'll just away MY ability to protect myself and my family.

Banning "assault" rifles is just one legal step too close to an outright ban for my tastes.

 

[senojekips]

But if one doesn't use it to kill, why should they not be allowed to have it?

Punish the abusers.

The trouble with that is, that it can't be done until after the crime has been committed, and with such weapons it is all too easy for one nutcase to kill so many. In which case there is good grounds for gun control, or banning.

I know, it seems harsh I loved collecting these weapons myself, but how else do you sort the nutcases out from the level headed owners. A bloke may be as good as gold when he goes to the police station, but when he gets a few beers in, becomes very irresponsible or angry. i don't have the answer, but I do admit that there is a problem with the current system.

 

[senojekips]

You will never prevent all gun crimes, that is an impossibility. But you cannot punish the good people who legally own them for the actions of the bad ones,

Unfortunately you are wrong. They can, and do, punish the majority.

 

[Rob Henderson]

The way you make a dent in any illegal activity:

Stricter penalties for any crime that involves the use of a firearm.

But that hasn't worked at all for any other criminal activity... Why should firearms be any different? If crime is still raging rampant throughout the entire United States, how can you say that it's making a dent in it?

But I also say that education is the bigger key here. I would wager that most gun crime occurs either from gangs or from people messed up in the head (like the VA Tech incident). We need to target the reasons people want to kill each other, not the tools they choose to do it with.

We will never figure out all the reasons a person would want to kill another person... That's even more of an improbability than preventing gun crime.

But I really foresee no way for the government to do that. They cannot solve gun crime, and they cannot protect me and mine from it. That's why I don't want them taking any steps to regulate guns - they'll just away MY ability to protect myself and my family.

Banning "assault" rifles is just one legal step too close to an outright ban for my tastes.

Really? You think the government can't do anything to protect you? I wonder what the crime rate would be like if the government WASN'T there for you....


As far as an assault rifle ban... There are PLENTY of other very effective guns out there besides assault rifles... Hand guns, pistols, hunting rifles... Assault rifles are just overkill. If you want to make SURE someone's dead... You use an assault rifle. But other than killing people, guns have no purpose whatsoever. Find another way to manifest your anger/relieve your stress/ entertain yourself.

 

[errol]

I agree Rob.

Why do some people need a fully automatic Assault Weapon to protect their family???

I just cannot understand this.

 

[A Can of Man]

Because a guy isn't going to get up after taking a 3 round burst to his chest.

 

[MontyB]

I agree Rob.

Why do some people need a fully automatic Assault Weapon to protect their family???

I just cannot understand this.

This is the one area I agree with the pro-gun lobby mantra, "Gun's don't kill people, people kill people" when looked at objectively all guns are equally dangerous, you can kill someone just as effectively with a musket as you can an AK47 but in the hands of a normal sane individual it is a perfectly harmless piece of equipment.

I don't support restrictions on the types of weapons that can be owned (within reason of course) what I do support is a system that stops nutters getting hold of these weapons.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

I agree Rob.

Why do some people need a fully automatic Assault Weapon to protect their family???

I just cannot understand this.

Why do people comment on subjects that they have failed to research?

A fully automatic firearm is a Class III (Title III) restricted weapon. Regular citizens are not allowed to own one. You must be a gun DEALER, and one authorized to deal in automatic weapons. There have been no new automatic weapons in the hands of citizens since the 1969 ban, so only those already in existence in America are even in circulation.

But once again, you've missed the point.

I don't understand why anyone needs anything more than a Yugo for a vehicle. But if the government said so, you'd throw a fit and scream about not being allowed to legally own what you wanted. Guns are no different. The argument that they are because cars weren't invented to kill is childish, at best.

That's the difference between a liberal and a conservative: a conservative wants the rights in the Constitution for everyone. A liberal only wants everyone to have the rights they personally agree with.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

But that hasn't worked at all for any other criminal activity... Why should firearms be any different? If crime is still raging rampant throughout the entire United States, how can you say that it's making a dent in it?

So prohibition ended alcohol crime? The war on drugs prevents drug crime? Gun free school zones have stopped school shootings?

Restricting and banning doesn't get the job done, either. The DUI rates have steadily dropped as we've made the PENALTY tougher for doing so - lowering the limit, increasing the mandatory sentencing, increasing fines to ridiculous amounts, and basically making lives miserable for the conviction.

We will never figure out all the reasons a person would want to kill another person... That's even more of an improbability than preventing gun crime.
Really? You think the government can't do anything to protect you? I wonder what the crime rate would be like if the government WASN'T there for you....

So, if someone broke into my house with a gun right here, right now, there'd magically be an officer here before he had the chance to ventilate me? Relying on the government is like screwing your sister: feels good, but doesn't produce anything positive.

As far as an assault rifle ban... There are PLENTY of other very effective guns out there besides assault rifles... Hand guns, pistols, hunting rifles... Assault rifles are just overkill. If you want to make SURE someone's dead... You use an assault rifle. But other than killing people, guns have no purpose whatsoever. Find another way to manifest your anger/relieve your stress/ entertain yourself.

I have explained this over and over.

I have a RIGHT to own a firearm. We both agree on that. I haven't seen anyone in this thread disagree with the inherent right that is the Second Amendment.

But where we disagree is on the definition of infringed. Unfortunately, we probably never will, as the word itself is a bit obtuse in the context of this discussion:

Inflected Form(s):in·fringed; in·fring·ingEtymology:Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at breakDate:1513 transitive verb1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>



To me, restricting assault rifles infringes on my rights: I have been allowed to own them, I have owned them, I have never abused them or committed a crime with them. Therefore, you (generic you) have no right to infringe my right to have one. I should not be punished and restricted because YOU don't like them, or because OTHERS have used them in heinous acts. You're holding me responsible for crime I had no part of.

Your stance, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the greater good of society trumps my right to have something I have no real, tangible, particular need for. You contend that you're not going to ban guns, so I'll still have my right to protection of me and mine, but that doesn't entitle me to own something that is detrimental to society. Better the overall health of society than my desire for a type of firearm.

In that, we are indeed arguing an IDEAL. The discussion is informative and even enjoyable, but I seriously doubt we'll change each others minds. You've made some good points, as have I.

It is natural to need to blame someone or something when a tragedy such as Virginia Tech happens. Our grief and outrage explode from their depths, and we not only demand justice, we seek ways to prevent the occurrence from transpiring again.

But this is where making MORE laws is historically proven as ineffective. The shooter stole the weapon employed. That was already against the law. He went into a gun free school zone, also against the law. And he committed multiple acts of premeditated murder, breaking the most egregious of laws.

He murdered 17 people. A 9mm pistol carries 16 rounds. It takes me less than one second to drop an empty mag, insert a new one, slam the slide home, and reacquire my general sight picture.

Given the above, one must ask themselves if the assault rifle was also illegal, would that have stopped him from using it? Or, put another way, if an assault rifle had NOT been even available, what would have stopped him from using a 9mm? The same amount of people would have died, and he would be equally as guilty.

Then they'll come for the 9mm's of the world. Then all automatics. Then all revolvers.

It is a precedent. In the eyes of the law, if less death occurs because assault rifles are easier to kill with, then a 9mm can be banned because it is easier to kill with than a single-shot rifle.

I cried and prayed for the victims and their families of that incident, just as I usually do with all tragedies.

But this tragedy would have happened whether assault rifles existed or not.

Now, what if the gunman would have begun shooting and that gun-free school law didn't exist? Wouldn't there had been a chance that there would have been LESS victims is a student pulled his or her personal firearm and killed the gunman?

Just a chance?

A chance is more than those innocent students got, that's for sure. :-(

Think about it.

 

[Rob Henderson]

So prohibition ended alcohol crime? The war on drugs prevents drug crime? Gun free school zones have stopped school shootings?

Restricting and banning doesn't get the job done, either. The DUI rates have steadily dropped as we've made the PENALTY tougher for doing so - lowering the limit, increasing the mandatory sentencing, increasing fines to ridiculous amounts, and basically making lives miserable for the conviction.

Hardly, but what I'm saying is to think if the government didn't have restrictions and bans on alcohol, drugs, and school shootings... It would be outrageous.

So, if someone broke into my house with a gun right here, right now, there'd magically be an officer here before he had the chance to ventilate me? Relying on the government is like screwing your sister: feels good, but doesn't produce anything positive.

Hehehe. Excellent saying there. But what I meant was, again, think if the government wasn't there AT ALL.... If the cops never came...

I have explained this over and over.

I have a RIGHT to own a firearm. We both agree on that. I haven't seen anyone in this thread disagree with the inherent right that is the Second Amendment.

But where we disagree is on the definition of infringed. Unfortunately, we probably never will, as the word itself is a bit obtuse in the context of this discussion:

Inflected Form(s):in·fringed; in·fring·ingEtymology:Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at breakDate:1513 transitive verb1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>



To me, restricting assault rifles infringes on my rights: I have been allowed to own them, I have owned them, I have never abused them or committed a crime with them. Therefore, you (generic you) have no right to infringe my right to have one. I should not be punished and restricted because YOU don't like them, or because OTHERS have used them in heinous acts. You're holding me responsible for crime I had no part of.

I don't think I've ever had this question answered in a gun control debate, but there's no harm in asking it again... What's the point? What's the point in you owning whatever gun you want? Where is the practical, logical reason for your owning of any gun you care to buy? I understand pistols... In fact, it might surprise you that I'm pro-concealed carry... I think THAT'S the most effective way to prevent crime, is the fact that knowing someone COULD be armed. Just like unmarked police cars... You never know when you're gonna get caught, so you go the speed limit regardless. What I am against is every Tom, Dick, and Harry owning any weapon they fancy. What's the point in having a sub-machine gun? I can almost guarantee you that if you fire a shot into the ground at a criminal trying to break into your house, that's going to be enough. If you say you shoot for fun at a range; fine... Fire your rifle or your pistol, but you don't need to head to the range and unload on a paper target 500 times... If that's what relieves your stress or gets you off... You've got bigger issues than people trying to take away your guns.

Your stance, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the greater good of society trumps my right to have something I have no real, tangible, particular need for. You contend that you're not going to ban guns, so I'll still have my right to protection of me and mine, but that doesn't entitle me to own something that is detrimental to society. Better the overall health of society than my desire for a type of firearm.

Absolutely... I just don't understand why anyone wouldn't want society to improve as a whole...

In that, we are indeed arguing an IDEAL. The discussion is informative and even enjoyable, but I seriously doubt we'll change each others minds. You've made some good points, as have I.

Agreed. It's been a real pleasure this go around.

It is natural to need to blame someone or something when a tragedy such as Virginia Tech happens. Our grief and outrage explode from their depths, and we not only demand justice, we seek ways to prevent the occurrence from transpiring again.

My thought process is not just a by-product of Virginia Tech; but any and all gun crimes.

But this is where making MORE laws is historically proven as ineffective. The shooter stole the weapon employed. That was already against the law. He went into a gun free school zone, also against the law. And he committed multiple acts of premeditated murder, breaking the most egregious of laws.

You're right... It was NOT just a matter of not having the laws in place for something like this, it was a matter of preparedness and awareness on everyone's part involved. The weapon should have been secured better, the school security should have been more aware/prepared, and I believe that teachers should be allowed to conceal-carry on school grounds. A blunder by our law making bodies.

He murdered 17 people. A 9mm pistol carries 16 rounds. It takes me less than one second to drop an empty mag, insert a new one, slam the slide home, and reacquire my general sight picture.

Given the above, one must ask themselves if the assault rifle was also illegal, would that have stopped him from using it? Or, put another way, if an assault rifle had NOT been even available, what would have stopped him from using a 9mm? The same amount of people would have died, and he would be equally as guilty.

Yes he would have, and like I said... This one incident, as you said, would have occurred regardless of the existence of assault rifles. But is that any less of a reason to allow assault rifles to become common place?

Then they'll come for the 9mm's of the world. Then all automatics. Then all revolvers.

It is a precedent. In the eyes of the law, if less death occurs because assault rifles are easier to kill with, then a 9mm can be banned because it is easier to kill with than a single-shot rifle.

I cried and prayed for the victims and their families of that incident, just as I usually do with all tragedies.

But this tragedy would have happened whether assault rifles existed or not.

Now, what if the gunman would have begun shooting and that gun-free school law didn't exist? Wouldn't there had been a chance that there would have been LESS victims is a student pulled his or her personal firearm and killed the gunman?

Just a chance?

A chance is more than those innocent students got, that's for sure. :-(

Think about it.

Like I said... Even if it's just the teachers carrying, I am all for concealed-carry on campus. I'm 100% for people learning to defend themselves with pistols properly... What I'm NOT okay with is the fact that someone could just steal two 9 millimeters and commit an act like Virginia Tech with such EASE...

 

[BritinBritain]

Do you just copy and paste these things? Do you simply google John Lott and copy the back of the book?

You didn't say a DAMNED thing about what was in the book... You just copied what a bunch of conservatives said about the book...

I have got John Lotts book and have read it, I'm not going to parrot phrase whats in the book because your too lazy to get a copy and read it.

I come into contact with vicitms of crime and have seen the result on almost a daily basis, and quite frankly some of the sights I've seen are horrendous.

I dont give a toss if gun crime has dropped in UK (some researchers state the reverse), gun crime is still being carried out by criminal gangs using ILLEGAL firearms that have been banned in UK for years. So to reiterate, banning guns does NOT prevent criminals getting hold of them.

The spiralling problem with gun culture was highlighted by figures that show 28 firearms crimes are committed in England and Wales every day.

Home Office figures showed gun crimes rose by four per cent last year, the largest increase for three years.

It follows a crackdown unveiled by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, after the shooting of 11-year-old Rhys Jones by another boy in Liverpool last August.

Police chiefs said the figures were concerning, while Tories said they showed Labour was "failing to combat violent crime and its causes". The Liberal Democrats said the data was "alarming".

There were 10,182 firearms offences in the year to the end of September compared with 9,755 in the previous 12 months - an increase of more than 400 crimes, or more than eight every week.

The rise is the biggest percentage increase since September 2004, when figures showed a five per cent increase in gun crimes.

While gun-related deaths were down, from 55 to 49, the number of slight injuries, threats and non-injury incidents linked to guns increased.

Victims' groups were appalled by the figures in the quarterly crime statistics released by the Home Office.

Norman Brennan, a policeman who is spokesman for the Victims of Crime Trust, said Government initiatives to tackle gun crime seemed to make no difference.

"Children as young as 11 or 12 are carrying guns," he said. "The sad reality is that it is becoming so routinely reported by the press that a child has been shot that the shock value has been eliminated."

Police chiefs said they were "concerned" about the rise. Bob Jones, the chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, said: "This is an area police authorities will want to monitor carefully."

David Davis, the Conservatives' shadow home secretary, said: "These latest official figures show that Labour is failing to combat both violent crime and its causes."

Mr Davis said the gun figures were linked to a steep rise in drug offences - up 21 per cent in the third quarter of last year. The number of drug crimes was 55,700, against 9,500 in the same period in 2006.

He said: "Violent crime is fuelled by drugs and Labour's chaotic and confused policy on drugs. Drugs wreck lives, destroy communities and are a major symptom of our broken society."

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "Violent crime - including, most alarmingly, gun crime - is still far higher than 10 years ago and has to be tackled much more vigorously."

Yep, UK gun control does work.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I have got John Lotts book and have read it, I'm not going to parrot phrase whats in the book because your too lazy to get a copy and read it.

I come into contact with vicitms of crime and have seen the result on almost a daily basis, and quite frankly some of the sights I've seen are horrendous.

I dont give a toss if gun crime has dropped in UK (some researchers state the reverse), gun crime is still being carried out by criminal gangs using ILLEGAL firearms that have been banned in UK for years. So to reiterate, banning guns does NOT prevent criminals getting hold of them.

Too lazy? Not quite... Too poor? Little more reasonable. By the way, it's paraphrase.




Again you post a bunch of other people's opinions instead of telling me your own. Are you really reading the posts? I'm not saying we need to ban guns. I'm saying we need to regulate and ban the unnecessary. You can't just walk around town with an automatic rifle or an Uzi... It's probably going to cause more harm than good. But, as I stated in my previous post, it is perfectly okay for me to concealed-carry. I even encourage people to take weapons safety courses and educate themselves in the use of their weapon so as to use it effectively.

 

[BritinBritain]

Again you post a bunch of other people's opinions instead of telling me your own. Are you really reading the posts? I'm not saying we need to ban guns. I'm saying we need to regulate and ban the unnecessary. You can't just walk around town with an automatic rifle or an Uzi... It's probably going to cause more harm than good. But, as I stated in my previous post, it is perfectly okay for me to concealed-carry. I even encourage people to take weapons safety courses and educate themselves in the use of their weapon so as to use it effectively.

Am I reading the posts? yes I am. Obviously your not reading mine, I have stated time and time again that when the powers that be begin to dictate what people are allowed to own, thats the slippery slope to total prohibition. It happened in UK with the ban on semi auto rifles, then the ban on handguns, it wont be long before bolt action rifles and shotguns will go the way of self loading rifles and handguns. Alcohol was banned in the US and what happened? It led to the rise of criminal organisations such as the Mafia which still blights America today. Has banning drugs stopped the supply, not it hasn't and neither will it. Banning certain types of firearm will never prevent criminals getting hold of them. Selective fire AK47's, RPG's, Semtex, grenades and other items were banned in UK, but the IRA managed to get hold of what they wanted.

The Swiss frequently walk around town carrying their issue selective fire rifle without problem.

Oh by the way, its not an automatic rifle, its a selective fire rifle if you are referring to an AK47, M16 and such like.

Who are you to say what people can or cannot own? Who are you to say whats necessary and whats not? That might be your opinion, but what is your opinion based on? What facts can you come up with for the reason to ban anything? I would love to own and fire a Sterling SMG, Bren LMG and GPMG. I was trained on those weapons AND I enjoyed firing them, so who the hell do you think you are, telling me whats unnecessary and whats not?

In the US there are groups who enjoy firing muzzle and breech loading field guns, there is also another group that fires fully automatic weapons like the mini gun, Brens and so on and have great fun in doing so, in your opinion thats unnecessary? There are also groups around the world who fly WW2 aircraft such as the Spitfire, Hurricane and P51 Mustang. They ENJOY flying those aircraft but in your valued opinion they aren't necessary? Where does your unnecessary start and finish? Only allowing someone to own one car, because more then one is unnecessary? Allowing one golf club because you only need one to belt a little white ball around.

If you are too poor to buy a copy of John Lotts book, then why not try looking in one of those rather large building containing thousands of books, I refer of course to something called a LIBRARY.

When you have done some proper and in depth research then come back and comment, what I have seen from you so far, you don't have a clue what your talking about.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Am I reading the posts? yes I am. Obviously your not reading mine, I have stated time and time again that when the powers that be begin to dictate what people are allowed to own, thats the slippery slope to total prohibition. It happened in UK with the ban on semi auto rifles, then the ban on handguns, it wont be long before bolt action rifles and shotguns will go the way of self loading rifles and handguns. Alcohol was banned in the US and what happened? It led to the rise of criminal organisations such as the Mafia which still blights America today. Has banning drugs stopped the supply, not it hasn't and neither will it. Banning certain types of firearm will never prevent criminals getting hold of them. Selective fire AK47's, RPG's, Semtex, grenades and other items were banned in UK, but the IRA managed to get hold of what they wanted.

So because it MIGHT happen, we shouldn't take any preventive measures at all? Is that really the mindset you're in, because if so, then there is no reason for any laws to exist because people will break them anyway... Right?

The Swiss frequently walk around town carrying their issue selective fire rifle without problem.

Oh by the way, its not an automatic rifle, its a selective fire rifle if you are referring to an AK47, M16 and such like.

Wonderful. If it can fire multiple rounds of ammunition in a fast, successive manner, I don't want it widely accessible to ANYONE. Military, police, etc. included.

Who are you to say what people can or cannot own? Who are you to say whats necessary and whats not? That might be your opinion, but what is your opinion based on? What facts can you come up with for the reason to ban anything? I would love to own and fire a Sterling SMG, Bren LMG and GPMG. I was trained on those weapons AND I enjoyed firing them, so who the hell do you think you are, telling me whats unnecessary and whats not?

I am only one person with an opinion. Just as you are only one person with one opinion. Neither you nor I can change the will of anyone else. We are only having a debate of two opposing viewpoints. I'm only telling you what I feel is common sense. Regardless of training or what gets you off, do you need a selective fire weapon? Does a selective fire weapon serve any other purpose besides murder? If so, please share some examples with me. Tell me something you can do with an M-16 that you couldn't do any other way. Tell me something you can do with an M-16 that you cannot live without.

In the US there are groups who enjoy firing muzzle and breech loading field guns, there is also another group that fires fully automatic weapons like the mini gun, Brens and so on and have great fun in doing so, in your opinion thats unnecessary? There are also groups around the world who fly WW2 aircraft such as the Spitfire, Hurricane and P51 Mustang. They ENJOY flying those aircraft but in your valued opinion they aren't necessary? Where does your unnecessary start and finish? Only allowing someone to own one car, because more then one is unnecessary? Allowing one golf club because you only need one to belt a little white ball around.

Yes, that is unnecessary. There are plenty of other ways to have fun that don't involve firing weapons intended to kill people. If shooting guns really does entertain you, then we have more serious issues than the banning of certain types of weapons. Flying WWII aircraft and shooting guns are two separate things. You can fly an aircraft and get a certain adrenaline rush out of it without having to fire the machine guns on the sides. Flying gives you a feeling of freedom, like you can do anything you want... Shooting a gun gives you the knowledge that you have control over someone. It's called a God-complex... That need to have control over others.

If you are too poor to buy a copy of John Lotts book, then why not try looking in one of those rather large building containing thousands of books, I refer of course to something called a LIBRARY.

I wouldn't waste my time, energy, or money on a bunch of pro-gun dribble that's probably just as biased as anyone in the NRA's opinions.

When you have done some proper and in depth research then come back and comment, what I have seen from you so far, you don't have a clue what your talking about.

Yes, because the sources I've posted aren't good enough, but as soon as you post a review from the New York Times, it's the conclusive evidence that guns don't need any regulation whatsoever.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

You would deny them to the MILITARY and to the POLICE, as well?

Dude, you need professional help.

 

[03USMC]

So because it MIGHT happen, we shouldn't take any preventive measures at all? Is that really the mindset you're in, because if so, then there is no reason for any laws to exist because people will break them anyway... Right?

No because criminals by nature choose not to obey published laws. While law biding citizens by nature choose to obey the published laws. Very distinct difference. So that leaves the criminals to be armed and the citizens now are the defenseless prey whether they would choose to be or not.

Wonderful. If it can fire multiple rounds of ammunition in a fast, successive manner, I don't want it widely accessible to ANYONE. Military, police, etc. included.

I guess we have offically entered the Utopian zone where everyone sings "One Love" holds hands and the cops and military don't need weapons right? Cause God knows if they were all armed with single shot .22 longs then criminals wouldn't feel threatened our country's enemies wouldn't feel threatened and thus endth crime and conflict right?

I am only one person with an opinion. Just as you are only one person with one opinion. Neither you nor I can change the will of anyone else. We are only having a debate of two opposing viewpoints. I'm only telling you what I feel is common sense. Regardless of training or what gets you off, do you need a selective fire weapon? Does a selective fire weapon serve any other purpose besides murder? If so, please share some examples with me. Tell me something you can do with an M-16 that you couldn't do any other way. Tell me something you can do with an M-16 that you cannot live without.

Do you even understand that select fire military grade small arms are already a restricted item? Do you understand the difference between select fire and semi-auto/self loading weapons? Do you even realize the hoops that one must jump thru to own a military grade select fire or automatic weapon legally?

In truth you are against semi-auto's with detachable magazines, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, pistol grips etc that are patterned on main battle rifles like the M16 family, the AK family, the FN-FAL family, and the G3 family to name some. Probably because certain elements of society have painted these rifles as evil.

I shoot three gun matches. I use an AR15 (M16 to you as we have established you probably can't recognize the difference) in one stage. I can't do that with a single shot shoulder arm.



Yes, that is unnecessary. There are plenty of other ways to have fun that don't involve firing weapons intended to kill people. If shooting guns really does entertain you, then we have more serious issues than the banning of certain types of weapons. Flying WWII aircraft and shooting guns are two separate things. You can fly an aircraft and get a certain adrenaline rush out of it without having to fire the machine guns on the sides. Flying gives you a feeling of freedom, like you can do anything you want... Shooting a gun gives you the knowledge that you have control over someone. It's called a God-complex... That need to have control over others.

Nice blanket accusation. Would be the same as me saying that all men who don't like guns probably suffer from a lack of testosteron and testicular fortitude. Yet niether your or my accusation is or would be correct. You don't seem to understand that like any hobby firearms appeal to a certain segement. I shoot, I hunt. Some people play dungeons and dragons, some golf, some build models, some knit. It's called personal preference and choice.

I shoot pistol matches, I shoot three gun matches, I shoot tactical rifle matches, I shoot percision long range tactical matches. I enjoy mastering my weapon to the point where I can put each round where I want it. I enjoy shooting small groups, I enjoy shooting sub-minute of angle groups. It has nothing to do with your "God -Complex" I've carried a firearm as a tool for most of my adult life. It's a tool used to protect me or others or to accomplish a mission. Nothing more nothing less.


I wouldn't waste my time, energy, or money on a bunch of pro-gun dribble that's probably just as biased as anyone in the NRA's opinions.

Could that be that a counter opinion that doesn't nicely dove tail into your own doesn't rate your oh so high and mighty agenda? And thus is beneath your worldly consideration?

Yes, because the sources I've posted aren't good enough, but as soon as you post a review from the New York Times, it's the conclusive evidence that guns don't need any regulation whatsoever.

Responses embedded.