RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives?

RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:11:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And that is why 99%+ of people have no business ever touching a firearm much less carrying a loaded weapon in public. If someone was close enough and level headed enough to draw and shoot the shooter without hitting anyone else or getting killed themselves they were close enough to tackle and bring down the shooter as well, which after all would have been the safer approach. Success in these situations, defined as stopping the shooter, is never incumbent on people being armed. Did you really just say that it was better to engage an armed opponent unarmed? Really? BTW, Holmes wasn't wearing body armor, he was wearing tactical clothing, a big difference the typical reporter doesn't know... They see the word tactical and think bulletproof, it's not it's bullet resistant. Holmes spent $300 on clothes bought at TacticalGear.com. That being said, the theater wasn't completely dark, they never are. But between the tear gas and movie flashing on the big screen in the background, engaging Holmes with a firearm would be a lose lose proposition. One of the rules to ccw is knowing when NOT to risk your life or the lives of bystanders. I really did say it was preferable in that situation just like you did. Has there ever been a mass murder stopped by a civilian with a gun?

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:13:23 PM)
quote: quote: A slight difference between a semi-automatic assault weapon and a baseball bat....logic failure Not if you are an unarmed victim. From across a crowded movie theater? There's a major difference.

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:14:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark The AR-15 used in Colorado for example was designed and built for the US military.....I'd say that makes it an assault weapon....The military rarely buys weapons not made to KILL PEOPLE....I'd say killing is indeed assault. You can make your own definitions but it doesn't make them official. M16's are produced for the military, theAR15 is a semi-auto look alike produced for civillians. Who fucking cares? Hardly the point.

onemanship -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:15:21 PM)
What, "even more gun control"? Americans need to realize that the USA does not exist in a vacuum. The USA has the least restrictive gun control laws among 1st world nations. Thus, OP is either trolling or plain ignorant. Guns are too easily accessible in the USA. This country is being destroyed by special interests groups. We have a military-industrial complex, a prison-industrial complex, a medical-industrial complex, and a gun-NRA-industrial complex. Imagine how many billions of dollars are at stake for these special interests. Politicians in their pockets. Truth and Justice are silenced. The USA is becoming a nation ruled by Money, not by Law. So starts a slow and steady decline.

DomKen -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:20:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus Theatres and such DO have smoke alarms and sprinkler systems, it's part of the building code. What happens when you mix oil and water? Sprinklers wouldn't do jack to a gasoline fire. depending on other factors a gas fire isn't terribly dangerous and is not a fast burner. Gasoline is less flammable than kerosene. Gasoline is most dangerous as an acceerant if it is aerosolized in a confined space. And sprinklers will put a gas fire out. Water carries away a tremendus amount of energy when it vaporizes which tends to bring a fire back below the combustion point, fire needs fuel, oxygen and heat to exist. Also areas soaked in water are much harder to ignite (again hard to get the material up to combustion temp) as well as standing water interfering with oxygen getting to the fuel even if it is hot enough to combust. Water is only useless/dangerous in electrical fires and those involving self oxidizing fuels (extremely rare materials like rocket fuel). splashing some gas around in a crowded theater and then trying to light it will burn some rugs and seat cushions but unless people passively sit and allow themselves to be doused and then remain seated till the flames go up it isn't going to burn them. Arson in an occupied structure with people awake and aware of what is happening is such a rare occurence as to be non existent.

SilverMark -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:25:22 PM)
You can call them what you wish, a gun like the AR-15 is used for killing, not really used to hunt deer now is it? Imagine squirrel hunting with one? Taking out a few fuzzy bunnies? Nope, made for target practice, killing people or showing off....doesn't work too well for other things... For home defense, a shotgun would work MUCH better...point in the general direcction and the blast and shot pattern would certainly be a deterent

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:25:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onemanship The fact is that guns are just too easily accessible in the USA. Personally, I think Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.[8D]

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:28:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark You can call them what you wish, a gun like the AR-15 is used for killing, not really used to hunt deer now is it? Imagine squirrel hunting with one? Taking out a few fuzzy bunnies? Nope, made for target practice, killing people or showing off....doesn't work too well for other things... For home defense, a shotgun would work MUCH better...point in the general direcction and the blast and shot pattern would certainly be a deterent Yep. Load it with rock salt! And if you're out of salt, it makes a great club. An AR-15 is like duck hunting with a rocket launcher.

DomKen -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:29:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark The AR-15 used in Colorado for example was designed and built for the US military.....I'd say that makes it an assault weapon....The military rarely buys weapons not made to KILL PEOPLE....I'd say killing is indeed assault. You can make your own definitions but it doesn't make them official. M16's are produced for the military, theAR15 is a semi-auto look alike produced for civillians. Bullshit Armalite made the AR-15 to sell to the military. The entire history of the AR-15 is tied to selling a rifle to the US military. The immediate predecessor to the AR-15 was the AR-10 (essentially a 7.62N weapon that looks almost exactly like an AR-15) which was rejected by the US Army back in th 1950's. The AR-15 was developed at the direct request of General Willard Wyman as an entrant to the .223 caliber weapon program.

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:31:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus An AR-15 is like duck hunting with a rocket launcher. You got something against hunting ducks with a rocket launcher?

onemanship -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:33:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: onemanship The fact is that guns are just too easily accessible in the USA. Personally, I think Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.[8D] ATF? Make that CATF. Cannabis, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms... (marijuana being the least harmful among the four)

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:34:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: onemanship The fact is that guns are just too easily accessible in the USA. Personally, I think Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.[8D] It's called Wal-Mart. Actually, there is a neighborhood store in a nearby city that sells exactly that, and some groceries. Eliminating the gun-show loophole would make a huge difference. It would have in this case too. Background checks and 5-day waiting periods are not unreasonable. Nor do people need assault rifles, semi-automatics, etc. At the very least, there should be mandatory training.

Moonhead -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:36:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus An AR-15 is like duck hunting with a rocket launcher. You got something against hunting ducks with a rocket launcher? Everybody who wants to be able to eat the duck after they've killed it does, you'll find.

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:38:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Background checks and 5-day waiting periods are not unreasonable. Unsubstantiated opinion.

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:40:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus An AR-15 is like duck hunting with a rocket launcher. You got something against hunting ducks with a rocket launcher? Everybody who wants to be able to eat the duck after they've killed it does, you'll find. Aw, come on Moon. Load the seeker head with some orange sauce and it's a meal ready to go.[:D]

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:40:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Background checks and 5-day waiting periods are not unreasonable. Unsubstantiated opinion. chuckle As is yours. Who needs an assault rifle in a hurry (that should be able to get one)? Who would need an assault rifle but not training in its use (short of previous training)?

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:43:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Background checks and 5-day waiting periods are not unreasonable. Unsubstantiated opinion. chuckle As is yours. Who needs an assault rifle in a hurry (that should be able to get one)? Who would need an assault rifle but not training in its use (short of previous training)? Training I agree with.

vield -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:43:34 PM)
LOL, taking the head off a duck with the tiny .223 bullet the AR-15 uses makes it nice for hunting, especially small game. It is legal for deer hunting most places, but personally I feel it is no where near powerful enough. The bullet is tiny. It weighs 55 to 89 grains. There are 7,000 grains in a pound.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:44:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Background checks and 5-day waiting periods are not unreasonable. Unsubstantiated opinion. chuckle As is yours. Who needs an assault rifle in a hurry (that should be able to get one)? Who would need an assault rifle but not training in its use (short of previous training)? Let be honest, most of those guns are made for illiterate peasants---load, point, shoot. Only rocket science is rocket science, amirite?

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:49:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vield LOL, taking the head off a duck with the tiny .223 bullet the AR-15 uses makes it nice for hunting, especially small game. Absolutely. Hardly any difference compared to a .220 Swift which are considered one fine round for small game.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02