amish school shooting

[DarthHookah]

am i the only one who feels this is going to be more fuel for hillary? i also noticed how the media was quick to point out that the gunman had an "automatic" pistol and a shotgun. i know, i just know from my gut that some fucking pud is going to cry for a ban on guns, bad words, and not getting along. wants us all to hold hands around a tree and sing Kum Ba Fucking Yah.

my friend and i were working together when the news broke, and he chuckled and said "i wonder if they used blackpowder guns?"

[benny]

Gun control ought to be put in place in the usa.

Look at the gun related crime rate in your country, compared to any other normal democratic capitalist country.

GoD Dont start again, we have very tight gun laws here in Aus, and our gun related crimes as a % of population is massively lower then the USA. Then again most countries compared to the USA are.

I'd feel safer if nobody had guns, as opposed to everyone including myself having a gun

I should also mention that a friend of mine has a farm where i shoot his Ruger rifle, and Shotty regularly. There is a place for guns, but not in cities, unless u r into target shooting.

[shimshamsam]

getting rid of guns wont solve anything, people will start stabbing eachother more, ban knives and people will throw drain-o on eachother, get rid of the drain-o and they will strangel eachother to death with 18 inch dildos.

besides where do you think kung-fu came from? what were the chineese without guns doing? trying to figure out the perfect way to bounce a rice patty of someones head so that it shatters their spine.

[PersianPride]

[quote name='shimshamsam']getting rid of guns wont solve anything, people will start stabbing eachother more, ban knives and people will throw drain-o on eachother, get rid of the drain-o and they will strangel eachother to death with 18 inch dildos.  

besides where do you think kung-fu came from? what were the chineese without guns doing? trying to figure out the perfect way to bounce a rice patty of someones head so that it shatters their spine.[/quote]

Yeah well generally its a lot harder to massacre a dozen people with a 18 inch dildo then it is with a semi-automatic rifle.....based on my personal experiences. I suppose that phrase 'Guns don’t kill people, people do' is correct to a degree but do we really want to give those 'people' a more efficient means by which to kill people.

[DarthHookah]

true, it is easier to kill a group of people with a "semi-automatic" rifle (i love how people throw that word around to make it sound scary) than it is with an 18 inch dildo, but a quick internet search and a trip to the garden store will get you all the supplies you need to build a bomb.

there are always going to be people who will break our hearts. taking their toys away will just stall them for a bit, until they think of something more creative.

by taking guns away from law abiding citizens like myself, you put us at risk. i have several guns (including a scary looking "semi-automatic rifle") and i have never used them for a crime. why should they be taken away from me? im not the asshole going around shooting people. that also does not give the government the right to snoop around into my personal life if i choose to own a gun.

since the beginning of time, people have been throwing rocks at one another, trying to take land, property, women, make a point, etc.

in any case, the most common types of guns used in crimes are the small, easily concealed, easily thrown away cheaply made little pistols. large caliber high capacity rifles are expensive, bulky, conspicuous (its easier to spot a guy wielding one of those than one hiding a little heater in his pocket) and generally not optimal for crime.

[Lukasa]

[quote name='shimshamsam']trying to figure out the perfect way to bounce a rice patty of someones head so that it shatters their spine.[/quote]

You can bounce a piece of farmland off of somebody's head??

[Seraph]

Blame this one on video games. I dare you.

[Joseph]

Yeah, one could build a bomb, but people don't tend to do that as impusively as one might shoot some one with a gun they can buy just down the street. In many countries a person can own a gun, it just has more restrictions, hence gun "control" not outlawing all fire arms. Cars can be dangerouse, so there are laws controling them, and there should deffinitley be more.

[DarthHookah]

tell you what... write your congressman, tell him that guns are the devil and they need to be registered and controlled, and ill just wait until the day another politician thinks guns need to be taken away altogether and uses the registry to hunt down and confinscate them all.

the reason we have the right to bear arms is to keep the government where it belongs- out of our lives.

and for those of you who think my hypothetical situation wont happen, it happened in germany when hitler took over. not recent enough for you? ok then, it happened in new orleans during hurricane katrina. we need weapons to protect ourselves. taking them away, or putting them on a "come and get our guns, mr. government man" list is just wrong.

[PersianPride]

[quote name='DarthHookah']true, it is easier to kill a group of people with a "semi-automatic" rifle (i love how people throw that word around to make it sound scary) than it is with an 18 inch dildo, but a quick internet search and a trip to the garden store will get you all the supplies you need to build a bomb.  

there are always going to be people who will break our hearts. taking their toys away will just stall them for a bit, until they think of something more creative.

by taking guns away from law abiding citizens like myself, you put us at risk. i have several guns (including a scary looking "semi-automatic rifle") and i have never used them for a crime. why should they be taken away from me? im not the asshole going around shooting people. that also does not give the government the right to snoop around into my personal life if i choose to own a gun.  

since the beginning of time, people have been throwing rocks at one another, trying to take land, property, women, make a point, etc.  

in any case, the most common types of guns used in crimes are the small, easily concealed, easily thrown away cheaply made little pistols. large caliber high capacity rifles are expensive, bulky, conspicuous (its easier to spot a guy wielding one of those than one hiding a little heater in his pocket) and generally not optimal for crime.[/quote]

Well as the other poster mentioned building a bomb is a premeditated action and does require a fair degree of chemistry research and is unlikely to lead to these massacres where someone simply goes postal.

Despite what you think I actually have fired quite a few guns including a G3 and do enjoy some occasional shooting. However I do it at a licensed shooting range and after I am done the guns are locked away and remain at the shooting range. I can't imagine any purpose I would have for a gun in suburbia. If it was up to me only bolt-action firearms should be allowed for private ownership anything more powerful or 'efficient' then that has no sporting or hunting purpose.

[benny]

Word, PP

If you need an automatic to go hunting, you're hardly a good shot

[DarthHookah]

you dont need an automatic to go hunting. thats not the issue. fully automatic weapons are already controlled. it takes about 6 months and i believe a 250$ tax (per class III option, such as silencers, full auto selector switches, etc.) to get a license.

during the LA riots of '92 are proof. while other businesses burned to the ground, it was the places that had AR-15's and AK-47's that stood their ground.

there was a man in new orleans who had a generator at his house, so he had electricity when no one else did. he was sitting on his porch when two peopel approached and tried to take it. but when he pulled out his weapon, he was left alone.

guns are emergency tools, not just sporting goods.

[Sonthert]

[quote name='shimshamsam']Yeah well generally its a lot harder to massacre a dozen people with a 18 inch dildo then it is with a semi-automatic rifle.....based on my personal experiences.[/quote]


What about a semi-automatic dildo?

Canada's per capita gun ownership is higher than ours, yet their violence rate is far lower...they have the same TV, movies and video games we do. Soft drinks, fast food, tattoos, cars, high rise buildings....I go back to a point I made along time ago. Gun control isn't the answer...gun control is like putting a bandaid on a guy who just had his leg chopped off. There are two prevalent paradigms running through society, as demonstrated and practiced by our governement.

1. If you interfere in my business or affairs, I'll kill you. The US practices this regularly...Iraq. I always ask rhetorically why North Korea can be dangling nuclear weapons and we do nothing while Iraq just gets run over with the justification that they were involved in the 9/11 attacks...or stealing a cow...or eating a ham sandwich in public or whatever we need to attack them...truth is, Iraq got in the way of big business, North Korea hasn't.

2. You should watch your neighbor, essentially interfere in other people's business around you. Is your neighbor a child molester? Amber alert signs...watch the cars around you. State video cameras. Talk shows. Reality shows...all people interfering and being encouraged to do so.

When these two paradigms interact...violence must insue, at least some people who value both of the will be ill at ease...two such hard, opposite ideas will create a conflict...hence violence. Rugged, misunderstood individualists shooting up schools, designed to interfere in other people's values and morals. Aren't these the two ideas that the KKK operates/d under? How'd that work out? KKK is almost a dead idea, lots of violence lots of anger and hatred. Is that our future?

[Buford]

If gun control works so well, that must explain why gun-free DC (handguns virtually outlawed since 1975) has a vastly higher crime rate per capita (particularly murders) than the entire neighboring state of VA, where no license is required to carry a pistol in open view. :roll:

However, this frames it as if crime statistics are all that matters. This is not the case, and regardless of the crime stats gun control is opposed to the US Federal Constitution as well as many state constitutions. Gun control is people control, an idea that runs contrary to the entire concept the US was founded upon. Not that the Constitution is used for much other than toilet paper anymore, though.

[Joseph]

Well, if the reasoning is that gun control and gun registration will lead to the government taking away all guns from the poor citizens, then maybe it should be the same with cars. People have to take classes and pass tests to drive a car, get insurance on the car in case they hurt some one else, register the car, and put a sign on the back of the car so the police and everyone else can identify whose car it is. Maybe this is all so the government can get a list of car owners then take away all their cars when they least expect it, leaving them helpless and stranded. I say no more drivers licenses and no more license plates, and keep the government away from our cars.

[Buford]

[quote name='Joseph']Well, if the reasoning is that gun control and gun registration will lead to the government taking away all guns from the poor citizens[/quote]

Already happened in New Orleans. It CAN happen here.

Being as you brought up cars, however:

Driving is considered a luxury - right to travel is secured but the act of driving a car to do it is not, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let’s put that aside for a moment. Vehicles and guns come up often in these debates, as a comparison with each other. Here in the U.S. you can at any age go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size you want, and you don’t need to do anything if you don’t use them on public property. No license at all. If you do want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16 and a learner's permit earlier than that. This license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property.

As for your idea about relaxing regulations on cars - hey, I even kind of like that idea.

[Joseph]

The constitution specifies a well regulated militia, which means regulation and control. People can have the right to bear arms while still having reasonable restrictions.

[Buford]

[url="http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html"]This article[/url] rebuts that comment far better than I can, with references, so I'll let it do the talking.

[Joseph]

Well, its an old cliche, but I will use it. We have freedom of speech, but I cannot incite a riot. I can't incite violence. If Ithreatened to kill the president, that would be a crime. Even though speech in general is protected, that doesn't mean I can say whatever I want whenever I want. People can have the right to bear arms, but that does not mean without any sort of restriction.

[PersianPride]

[quote name='DarthHookah']you dont need an automatic to go hunting. thats not the issue. fully automatic weapons are already controlled. it takes about 6 months and i believe a 250$ tax (per class III option, such as silencers, full auto selector switches, etc.) to get a license.

during the LA riots of '92 are proof. while other businesses burned to the ground, it was the places that had AR-15's and AK-47's that stood their ground.

there was a man in new orleans who had a generator at his house, so he had electricity when no one else did. he was sitting on his porch when two peopel approached and tried to take it. but when he pulled out his weapon, he was left alone.

guns are emergency tools, not just sporting goods.[/quote]

Holy shit man $250 and a 6 month wait that seems more then reasonable procedure for a weapon that can mow down 20 people. The point is that they have no use purpose in society so why keep them around so that the occasional crazy person can have a more efficient manner by which to conduct a massacre.
As for the rest personally you don't need a automatic gun to hold back groups of people. Usually the vision of any gun no matter its calibre. rate of fire or muzzle velocity makes people back off. Whats more the same thing can be done with pepper spray. I was on the nightclub stripe with friends a while ago and this small group was being harassed by a gang of aboriginals. Then one of the people being threatened pulled out a can of pepper spray and completely immobilised 6 of them. It was so bad that the people that were being harassed actually had to help the aborigines into near by bars to have their eyes flushed with water.

As for New Orleans thats all well and good however I believe that guns were also fired at rescue workers and helicopters hampering the rescue effort.

[DarthHookah]

lets get a few facts straight because you are confusing me. define "automatic weapon".

[Joseph]

An automatic firearm is a firearm that uses the energy of firing to extract and eject the fired cartridge case, and load a new case. The term can be used to refer to semi-automatic firearms, which fire one shot per pull of the trigger, or fully-automatic firearms, which will continue to load and fire ammunition as long as the trigger (or other activating device) is pressed or until the ammunition is exhausted. Which meaning is intended is generally discernible by context. "Automatic pistol" or "automatic shotgun" generally refers to a semi-automatic design, while "automatic rifle" more often means a fully-automatic or selective fire design.

[Vlax]

Hey, PP, most people fail to realize that if you have the automatic weapon permit. You give up most of your private rights. Meaning that the ATF and FBI can and do search that persons house at anytime they see fit and on top of have the weapons register. If one chooses to shoot their auto-fire guns they have to noticify locale law enforcement that the guns will be used.

Also any gun control that goes through hampers the law abiding citzens rights.
Who most live in sub-urban and rural areas. THAT are not high crime areas(for the most part).
So any laws that are passed effect those people more, than they do the high crime araes.


Regulating fire-arms is not the answer. Because the actions of a few should not control the majority.

Which in USA seems to be norm now. Which is sad.

[Joseph]

Well, Should I be able to incite others to riot, or threaten the presidants life? Those things are illegal, couldn't I say it hampers my rights to free speech? S

[DarthHookah]

look, this arguement isnt really going anywhere. no clear arguements, just "guns are good" versus "guns are bad". im going to state how i feel, and leave this thread alone.

guns are fun to shoot

i want guns for my protection

stronger restrictions keep guns away from the law abiding citizens that need them, while the criminals run free

statistics support any arguement, so i ignore them anyways

as long as the police need them, i need them (if a police officer needs a gun just to go into a bad neighborhood, what about the people who live there?)

ours is a bill of RIGHTS, not a bill of NEEDS


this is how i feel, and no one is going to change my mind.