At 12/21/12 02:01 PM, Revo357912 wrote: 1) More rigorous background checks and Psychological tests to obtain a gun.

True. That runs up against a problem though. The percentage of mentally who have attacked someone with a gun is very low. Are we really willing to label all of the mentally ill as unstable to the point of not being able to own a gun when the ultra-super-majority of them live peacefully?

2) Training on how to properly handle a gun, as well as maintain it.
3) A one time class on why guns should be dealt with carefully and should be respected.

These are fine to prevent accidents, but gun crimes are perpetrated by those who clearly don't care about the consequences, or by those who are in the heat of the moment and never stop to think of the consequences. These classes won't solve much of the real problem at all.

4) A Single License for all guns that can be changed to show what type of training the person has recieved (ex: military, cop, pistol, rifle)

For what purpose? How would that help anything? Military vets are at a far higher liklihood to have a mental illness (as a result of combat) than the civilian population. Should we really be lauding them for being at a higher risk for misusing their weapons? Even then, I have seen a study that stated close to 80% of all enlisted military men have aggression disorder. Sounds likely to backfire to me.

5) A national electronic registry system to keep records of purchases and allow the system to flag excessive purchases.

Absolutely. This could also flag people who make end runs around guns laws like those who go to other states to avoid the laws of their current jurisdiction.

6) Make guns cheaper by giving tax breaks to gun manufactures (Maybe, trickle down doesn't quite work well after all)

Why?

7) Keeping mass populated vulnerable places (such as schools and movie theaters) with at least one armed and trained staff member.

Pony up. Police officers aren't cheap.

We don't need more gun control. As usual, something like this happens and everyone is up in arms with reactionary arguments.

The mother was the problem.
The kid did not purchase his own weapons, his mother purchased them. In fact, the son was denied purchase.
She allowed the son she knew to be violent(as evidenced by her suggestion to a baby sitter to avoid turning her back on him) and depressed to use them.
She did not take note of his increased range time.
She did not lock her guns up even though she knew her son was on medication for depression.

Conclusion - It was the mother's fault.

Gun control? No, no, we need to teach people common sense. If you have a kid in your home, or a relative that may turn violent due to some kind of mental health issue then you should lock up your guns (if you by any at all). Simple as that.

On the personal side, the best known way to solve this Gun debate going on, I think people need to relay not on Gun Control, but in fact Weapon Responsibility.

Yes, The Creed of Weapon Responsibility that should be in place for all to know, why this? Because people need to learn to protect themselves and learn to be responsible for the very weapons they possess, I not only include Guns but also other things like Knives, Swords, Clubs, Maces, Axes, Baseball Bats, Knuckles, even one's own Body so here's what I have in mind as seen below.

We are always armed, down to the body itself.
Everyone is responsible for one's own weapons.
Always keep weapons safe and secure, draw weapons only when needed.
Protect oneself & others only when needed, not when wanted.
Oneself must train to use a weapon in the right way possible.
Never let your weapons & knowledge on how to use them to fall into the hands of the irresponsible & immature.

Again I'll say, people in not only the United States of America but also the world must learn about the responsibilities on weapons. That said, Great Power comes with Great Responsibility and in turn Great Knowledge also comes with Great Sense, the reason for this is very simple.

If there isn't Knowledge that isn't Power then there isn't Sense that isn't Responsibility, all who read this, remember that and remember it good!

At 12/22/12 07:30 AM, Cootie wrote: I love how people are acting as if semi-auto rifles are in an entirely different league than other guns and are harbingers of death and destruction.

There are people saying that the "AR" in AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle. :/

Also, I love them movie in your signature ^_^

At 12/21/12 09:39 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 12/21/12 02:01 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

5) A national electronic registry system to keep records of purchases and allow the system to flag excessive purchases.

Should probably be a state program like driver's licenses. And flagging excessive purchases should be limited to individuals. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it probably wouldn't help very much.

I was thinking national/state in order to not be limited by boundaries. Also, requiring websites that sell guns to US citizens to require them to input a gun registration code in order to make sure the person is licensed.

6) Make guns cheaper by giving tax breaks to gun manufactures (Maybe, trickle down doesn't quite work well after all)

Why do guns need to be cheaper?

Yea, I guess your right. I was thinking it might be convenient to make cheaper because of point 7, but nah.

Clarifications:
2/3: Very basic training, meaning just a safety course, learning the gist about the gun you want (whether it's rifle, shotgun, pistol, no specifics) and how to keep your gun well maintained, the responsibility you have, and a little bit of target practice (so that the person knows how to actually shoot in time of need). The safety course and the responsibility course will be only one time every 5 years, and that's only if you now own more than one gun type, and will only be required 3 times max.

I don't think there needs to be separate classes for different types of gun. Assuming automatics would be banned in this scenario, learning the basics of a gun in general would suffice for the average citizen. A course every 5 years would also be unnecessary except for perhaps the elderly.

Good, point, we should limit the class retake to the elderly.
Also, separate class in the broadest of sense; literally, just if you've had training with a pistol, rifle, and shotgun (or we could replace shotgun with hunting and integrate both licenses).
And yes, I just mean basics.

I'm saying this simply because there are plenty of responsible adults who understand what a gun is and how to use it. But it would be a good idea to have a license that can receive "points" for violent crimes, where serious felonies would revoke the license and limit purchases to bolt-actions and place a cap on purchasing ammunition.

Actually, I think maybe it should be stricter on violent crimes, but you have a point with the point system. Like, 3 strikes your out. However, if it's a felony, you only get 1 extra chance?

5: This is mostly to be able to report stolen fire arms with greater ease. The flagging system will be passive and only be used when other things start popping up (such as signs of alcohol abuse, a report of domestic violence, etc). If the amount is considered massive, then a one time letter will be sent to the home with some mandatory questions to be answered as to why you own so much ammo/guns.

An easier solution would be background checks prior to purchases. A stable person with no police record is going to be able to get away with collecting a ton of ammunition for the purpose of something villainous with or without the flagging system. Accidents will always happen and most restrictions in place today are simply missing the background checks.

Yup, that is what I meant, a background check prior to purchase. And if retrieved from an electronic database, all they would need is your ID and gun registration code.

And since I understand that a stable person is going to be able to get away with it, sending them a one time questionnaire before they get the ammo may help a teensy bit.

At 12/21/12 10:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/21/12 02:01 PM, Revo357912 wrote: 1) More rigorous background checks and Psychological tests to obtain a gun.

True. That runs up against a problem though. The percentage of mentally who have attacked someone with a gun is very low. Are we really willing to label all of the mentally ill as unstable to the point of not being able to own a gun when the ultra-super-majority of them live peacefully?

I think anyone labelled on the more critical levels of mental illness as determined by the DSM-5 probably shouldn't have a gun.
And that percentage your giving me (or stating in this case); is that based on total attackers with guns, or total people with a mentally illness who own a fire arm and abused it?

2) Training on how to properly handle a gun, as well as maintain it.
3) A one time class on why guns should be dealt with carefully and should be respected.

These are fine to prevent accidents, but gun crimes are perpetrated by those who clearly don't care about the consequences, or by those who are in the heat of the moment and never stop to think of the consequences. These classes won't solve much of the real problem at all.

Well, it's nice to prevent more accidents, a good deal of injuries and some deaths can be prevented, and that's a good thing, right? Also, I meant a class on the morality of gun ownership, so as that it (hopefully) reminds one when they are in said heat of the moment the reason why not to abuse their gun.

4) A Single License for all guns that can be changed to show what type of training the person has recieved (ex: military, cop, pistol, rifle)

For what purpose? How would that help anything? Military vets are at a far higher liklihood to have a mental illness (as a result of combat) than the civilian population. Should we really be lauding them for being at a higher risk for misusing their weapons? Even then, I have seen a study that stated close to 80% of all enlisted military men have aggression disorder. Sounds likely to backfire to me.

Okay, we could eliminate the status part of the license. I only thought that adding one status would be good just to show one's experience using a gun, not make it easier because you have that status - in other words, military vets would go through the same procedure as cops and regular citizens do.

5) A national electronic registry system to keep records of purchases and allow the system to flag excessive purchases.

Absolutely. This could also flag people who make end runs around guns laws like those who go to other states to avoid the laws of their current jurisdiction.

6) Make guns cheaper by giving tax breaks to gun manufactures (Maybe, trickle down doesn't quite work well after all)

Why?

I thought it would help balance the cost of 7 a bit, but like I said, I'm willing to eliminate point 6.

7) Keeping mass populated vulnerable places (such as schools and movie theaters) with at least one armed and trained staff member.

Pony up. Police officers aren't cheap.

Not police officers, literally a staff member who has enough training with a gun and can prove it. They would just get paid a bit more in salary is all.

For example, if one of the concierge staff of a movie theater have a gun, a license, and good experience, they can be allowed to carry it in order to defend citizens in case of an emergency. They could also be paid a bit more to their salary because of it, like 1-3$ more per hour.

Or, if they have the money, they could just pay a security guard.

I know this concept may be hard for some idiots to comprehend but bare with me here. CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS!!! Since criminals do not obey laws, then what in Gods name makes your think more laws will stop criminals?!?!

It was BECAUSE OF BAD LAWS that the school did not allow guns or any means for people to defend themselves which turned the school into a free fire zone that was a safe haven for a mad gunman to kill as he pleased with no worries that someone might shoot back.

Why must law abiding gun owners be punished because one insane murderers weapon of choice just happen to be a gun?
What if that murderer used a car to run over his victims instead? Would you try to ban cars?

But lets blame the guns. NOT the person who did it. NOT the anti depressants he was on that cause phychotic breaks. NOT the voilent video games he played for 8+ hours a day. NOT the media who give murderers like this wall to wall coverage and the attention they crave. NOT the laws that made the school unsafe. NOT his mother who failed the properly lock up her weapons. NO LETS JUST BLAME SOME INANIMATE OBJECTS.

While the shamestream media were using the childrens deaths as a platform to push their politcal agendas, they conviently overlooked this story:
http://www.infowars.com/armed-citizen-not-police-prevented-m assacre-in-oregon/

Here are some FBI crime statistics that show that violent crime has decreased significantly (do to more and more people owning guns):
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c rime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

FDA-approved prescription drugs kill 290 Americans every single day, meaning that for mass shootings to even approach that number, you'd have to see a New Town massacre take place EVERY HOUR of every day, 365 days a year. The government doesnt want gun control because they care about you, they want a monopoly on firepower. If they really cared about you they would ban perscription drugs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Jhj3u 3LoooM

More proof why gun control doesn't work:
1911- Turkey disarmed the citizens, 1915-1917 over 1.5 million Armenians were murdered.
1929- Russia disarmed the citizens, 1929-1953 over 20 million Russians were murdered.
1938- Germany disarmed the citizens, 1939- 1945 over 16? million people were murdered.
1949- China disarmed the citizens, 1952- 1960 0ver 64 million Chinese were murdered.
1970- Uganda disarmed the citizens, 1971-1979 over 300,000 Christians were murdered.
This is only a small fraction of "Gun Control" examples, banning guns does not work.

At 6/11/07 06:47 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: If you entered this thread because you read the title and want to unleash a rapid-fire barrage of insults, then leave now. I don't want to deal with you, just those that respect my opinion, whether they agree with it or not.

Now, on to my point. Why do gun stores sell semiautomatic weaponry without having to fill out some kind of form or going through a screening process or something? If you're a deer hunter, or a duck hunter, or any kind of hunter, you don't need semiautomatic fire to kill one deer. If you collect guns, you should be willing to fill out a form of some kind to get a gun you probably won't use. The fact that there is no control on these guns in most places leads to things like... oh, I don't know, the V-Tech rampage?

Don't you think?

Personally, i think all the protectionists need to stop fucking talking about "you dont need that for hunting", "thats not used to kill a deer." I dont hunt... many gun owners do not. Hunting is not the only legitimate reason to own a gun.

What about protecting youself? A semi automatic does exceptionally well in these conditions.

If your about to be murdered or raped, when every second counts, how well can you really trust that bolt action rifle, especially at close distances?

FUCK you protectionists who want to disarm GOOD people. These people did nothing wrong, they are LAW ABIDING US CITIZENS. DONT. TREAD. ON. ME.

At 12/22/12 05:49 PM, Revo357912 wrote: I was thinking national/state in order to not be limited by boundaries. Also, requiring websites that sell guns to US citizens to require them to input a gun registration code in order to make sure the person is licensed.

Right now I think that we need to expand background checks to all states and have them do them the same way.

Also, what you describe about internet gun sales already exists. In order to buy you have provide the supplier with your FFL before he ships it.

Now, Craig's list and other person-to-person sales that take place over internet classifieds is another story. With this we could start making background checks available to the public for about $10.

As for registry...we have that de facto already. FFL dealers have to maintain a record of every gun they sell. If they go out of business or stop selling guns, they turn these records over to the BATF. To expand the registry further would be a waste of time, money and manpower. Canada tried that...and recently dumped it for being too expensive and not having all that significant effect on gun crime.

Clarifications:
2/3: Very basic training, meaning just a safety course, learning the gist about the gun you want (whether it's rifle, shotgun, pistol, no specifics) and how to keep your gun well maintained, the responsibility you have, and a little bit of target practice (so that the person knows how to actually shoot in time of need). The safety course and the responsibility course will be only one time every 5 years, and that's only if you now own more than one gun type, and will only be required 3 times max.

We have that somewhat already in states with Concealed Carry. To get a permit they have to attend class and then show proficiency with their gun. In Mo have you to shoot both a revolver and automatic.

Training in general is something I'm actually a little on the fence about. I have seen some stupid, careless and irresponsible people on the range.

On the other hand...

Gun accidents have decreased by 95% since 1904 when we started keeping track of such stats. You are more likely to die from a walking accident than by a gun accident. And finally, you cannot teach morality...so people with evil intent are not going to just start thinking good thoughts because an instructor tells them to.

I see it costing a lot of money and not doing anything.

I don't think there needs to be separate classes for different types of gun. Assuming automatics would be banned in this scenario, learning the basics of a gun in general would suffice for the average citizen. A course every 5 years would also be unnecessary except for perhaps the elderly.

I'm saying this simply because there are plenty of responsible adults who understand what a gun is and how to use it. But it would be a good idea to have a license that can receive "points" for violent crimes, where serious felonies would revoke the license and limit purchases to bolt-actions and place a cap on purchasing ammunition.

If you are convicted of a felony you may no longer own, buy or possess a firearm.

5: This is mostly to be able to report stolen fire arms with greater ease.

There is no reason to make this process easier. If your firearm is stolen, most likely you've had a break-in. If you are a law-abiding citizen you' re going to call the cops anyway. The stolen firearms will be part of the report.

====

I commend you both for trying to come up with solutions to the problem of gun violence. But the problem is the gun and our laws do not really address the root causes. That's what I want to see...addressing the social ills and problems that cause people to do horrendous things.

I for one would like to see our penal system re-vamped. As it stands all it does right now is provide a college or university-style setting for experienced criminals to recruit and train noob criminals how to do harder crimes. What if instead we used closed military bases to set-up 'cities' for the inmates. McDonalds and Walmart (just two names pulled from my ass) open up a restuarant/store. The inmates staff them learning skills...managing the stores. Meanwhile, other inmates contract with other service industries and manufacturers to learn those trades. At night they go to school to get a GED or some sort of college degree.

This way people serve their sentence and come out rehabilitated. Employers receive tax credits for hiring these people. Instead of what we have now...people serve their time and when they get out struggle to find work and the only new skills they've developed are criminal ones.

We have a lot of work to do. Pursuing gun control is the lazy, 'nothing' solution.

At 12/20/12 04:48 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

Guns are designed to kill.

Wrong. Military firearms are actually designed to intimidate and if necessary wound an enemy combatant. This inflicts a much greater cost (human, fiscal, and logistical) on the enemy than by killing.

On the other hand, muskets, shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols are all designed to kill.

In order to be intellectually honest and consistent Obama and Feinstein should be working to ban all non-military style guns.

:)

At 12/21/12 02:01 PM, Revo357912 wrote: This is based on my observations on other countries, such as Switzerland, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, China, South and North Korea, Russia, and United States, ...

Not trying to nit-pick...but:

* One of the reasons I do not find the pro-gun control argument convincing when describing other countries is their over-reliance on anecdotal evidence. A person can cherry pick cases that prove one point or another. For example, a pro-gun person would pick out Switzerland and Mexico because they actually prove their point. Meanwhile, someone from Handgun Control Inc. would pick out Japan, Canada and S. Korea.

* Not only is 'cherry picking' a problem, it also ignores significant differences. For example, most of those countries have ethnic majorities in the 90% and up range. There is no minority that is treated like a second-class and experiences diminished economic and/or educational opportunities. Also, China, N. Korea and Saudi Arabia are to varying degrees police states with harsh penalties for breaking the law.

* What you want to do is look for trends using inferential statistics. This is done with computer programs which frees up the social scientist's time and eliminates bias from the results. What we find, in simple terms, is how often you see variable x influence variable y. In the case of guns, the math is determinate. Gun control and the presence (or lack thereof) does not, statistically speaking, effect crime rates...even gun crime. Poverty levels, education, and Ethnolinguistic Fractionalization are shown to be far more causal.

* What is cool about doing the social science on guns is that it is one of those rare incidents where we can have complete data AND a sample population (aka: n) of 100%. So we can put the crime rates of practically every country in the world (N. Korea is highly suspect on any stat Pyongyang provides). This makes the conclusion more solid and strong. I am only talking about international questions involving gun control. However, the question of how many times guns are used defensively each year does rely upon survey methodology.

But I agree with Switzerland:

* Every male at 18 should report for military training. We could cut back on the Department of the Army and rely upon a militia instead of an Army. Everyone not going into the Air Force, Marines, Navy, or Coast Guard full-time (or as a reservist) would report to Army basic training.

* You are required to keep a M-16 or M-4 in your home, maintain it, and drill with your local militia unit regularly.

* You are required to keep, sealed, a box of 120 rounds of military, FMJ ammo along with your gun. This is audited yearly by your militia unit.

* Annually you will receive a PHA (Preventative Health Assessment), which will along with physical health, examine your mental fitness for duty.

At 12/22/12 07:23 PM, OngarTheWorldWeary wrote:

FDA-approved prescription drugs kill 290 Americans every single day, meaning that for mass shootings to even approach that number, you'd have to see a New Town massacre take place EVERY HOUR of every day, 365 days a year. The government doesnt want gun control because they care about you, they want a monopoly on firepower. If they really cared about you they would ban perscription drugs.

So, supposing only 20 died in New Town (was more), and it would have to happen every day to catch up with the 290 your pointing out, then... lets do some math.

20*24= 480.

Huh, what do you know, 480 isn't 290.

Not only that, but if 290 die a day from prescription drugs, that's 105,850 a year.
Weird, it doesn't make the top ten list.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Or this top list either:
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/top-15-causes-of-deat h
Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate #United_States
Or even here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/leading-causes-of-death-from-
1900-2010-2012-6?op=1

Oh, but it does seem your info came from one person's book, who I quote, "estimated" the number of deaths from side effects related to the drugs. That's right, not whether the drug caused it or not, but if the person died from a side effect listed on the drug.
In other words, if you have high blood pressure due to diabetes, a potential side effect listed on a certain diabetes medicine may temporarily increase blood pressure, and you die of high blood pressure, that counted as a death caused by the drug in his statistics.

I'm not disagreeing with you that pharmaceutical companies are bad, I agree with that 100% in that, but don't just blurt out random things and blame it on a president you might not like. This ain't the conspiracy thread, its the gun thread.

On a side note, Mason, I agree, and what you said kind of sort of (in the loosest way) ties in what I said when arguing on the anti-gun side: the culture in America is what has to changed to fix the problems with firearms more than anything. And what you said is a perfect place to start.

CDC's top 10 causes of death in this country (2010):

* suicide by gun: #4
* homicide by gun: #5
* unintentional by gun: ?

In only one age group did accidental gun deaths enter the picture: 10-14 year olds...and it ranked 10th with 26 deaths.

Then looking at nonfatal injuries treated in hospitals (2011)...

Guns did not even crack the top 10 list.

source

To put it in perspective, the anti-gun crowd often puts out a figure around 100,000 injured by firearms each year. A firearm is a consumer product.

So are cars and household chemicals.

Injuries alone:

* 2.76 million injuries due to cars.
* 800,000 injuries due to poisoning.

The greatest cause of injuries for all age groups but 15-24 year olds?

Falls at over 9 million.

When you look at all the ways you could die or get hurt...the probability of receiving a GSW is pretty darn slight.

At 12/23/12 12:09 AM, Revo357912 wrote: On a side note, Mason, I agree, and what you said kind of sort of (in the loosest way) ties in what I said when arguing on the anti-gun side: the culture in America is what has to changed to fix the problems with firearms more than anything. And what you said is a perfect place to start.

I was watching a PBS special on the Newtown shooting. One of the things they brought up was the fame these psychos get following the shooting. Perhaps it is time that the media not play along and stop putting the killer's picture all over TV and naming him.

If they stop getting their 15 minutes of fame...some may not go through with their plans.

China wants US to disarm citizens (I wonder why?)

At 12/23/12 08:18 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: China wants US to disarm citizens (I wonder why?)

Perhaps this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6T2Q4bBcUU

Anyway I'm here because of this: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/newspaper-publishes-gu n-owners-names-addresses-215214269--abc-news-topstories.html

If anybody supports what they did, kill yourselves.

At 12/24/12 06:32 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Anyway I'm here because of this: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/newspaper-publishes-gu n-owners-names-addresses-215214269--abc-news-topstories.html

If anybody supports what they did, kill yourselves.

Holy Shit my uncle is on their!

At 12/24/12 07:45 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Holy Shit my uncle is on their!

there. sorry auto-correct on my phone. posting on my mobile.

At 12/24/12 06:32 PM, wildfire4461 wrote:

At 12/23/12 08:18 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: China wants US to disarm citizens (I wonder why?)

Perhaps this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6T2Q4bBcUU

Anyway I'm here because of this: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/newspaper-publishes-gu n-owners-names-addresses-215214269--abc-news-topstories.html

If anybody supports what they did, kill yourselves.

China should be more worried about there own nation then the outside nations outside there borders. You honestlly think we the American people will comply to China's demand? NO, we the American people have our own problems to worry about, why should China worry about us? China should be worried about taking care of themselves like parents taknig care of there children.

If China wants the American People to disarm and impose Gun Control, I say the Chinese Goverment can "shove it" for all I care. That alone proves that China needs to stop jumping into the affairs of other nations, yet they do so for the most ill reasons imaginable.

That said, nations need to learn to take care of themselves, whatever more or less matters not, only thing that matters so is that people need to learn that Great Power comes with Great Responsibility and Great Knowledge in turn also comes with Great Senes, if the Chinese Goverment hasen't learned this then something's wrong and that something is the one thing if not series of things they need to deal with on there own.

Again I will say, thoes who think Gun Control is the way will realize it isn't "the hard way", it's Weapon Responsibility we need to be more worried about because if we go the path of Weapon Responsibility then people in turn will take better care of there weaponry.

At 12/24/12 07:45 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

If anybody supports what they did, kill yourselves.

Holy Shit my uncle is on their!

On the bright side, he does have a gun...

At 12/24/12 06:32 PM, wildfire4461 wrote:

At 12/23/12 08:18 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: China wants US to disarm citizens (I wonder why?)

Perhaps this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6T2Q4bBcUU

Anyway I'm here because of this: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/newspaper-publishes-gu n-owners-names-addresses-215214269--abc-news-topstories.html

If anybody supports what they did, kill yourselves.

Holy hell I am appalled, there is only one reason to do something like this, to create problems.

"Gun control? ItâEUTMs the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If IâEUTMm a bad guy, IâEUTMm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and IâEUTMll pull the trigger. WeâEUTMll see who wins." - Sammy "The Bull" Gravano

My big issue with guns and crimes related to guns is that a criminal can murder another man in cold blood, get let out of prison in 20 years and do it all over again. If you kill a man for an xbox, $20, gang shooting, or for some bullshit reason you belong in prison for the rest of your life, period.

As for guns themselves, I don't see why semi-automatic rifles, machine guns, submachine guns, and all of these ridiculous things are needed for "hunting and self defense". These guns are designed to kill as many people as possible as efficiently as possible, there is no reason for them to be legal for anything.

At 12/26/12 01:44 AM, Saen wrote: My big issue with guns and crimes related to guns is that a criminal can murder another man in cold blood, get let out of prison in 20 years and do it all over again. If you kill a man for an xbox, $20, gang shooting, or for some bullshit reason you belong in prison for the rest of your life, period.

As for guns themselves, I don't see why semi-automatic rifles, machine guns, submachine guns, and all of these ridiculous things are needed for "hunting and self defense". These guns are designed to kill as many people as possible as efficiently as possible, there is no reason for them to be legal for anything.

Nobody is using a "machine gun" or "submachine gun" I suggest you actually learn about guns before you pull things out of your ass. As for semi-automatic do you even know what semi-automatic means? an AR-15 is typically LESS lethal then a semi-automatic handgun.

Anyway the AR-15 makes an excellent Varmint rifle when you need to shoot multiple times in order to actually hit more then one target quickly.

At 12/26/12 02:14 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

Nobody is using a "machine gun" or "submachine gun" I suggest you actually learn about guns before you pull things out of your ass.

If it was all up to the NRA folks to decide, everyone and his mother would be armed with machine guns to keep our country "safe".

Anyway the AR-15 makes an excellent Varmint rifle when you need to shoot multiple times in order to actually hit more then one target quickly.

Sure, like hunting with a semi-auto of any kind can actually be called hunting, give me a break.

I like how when you are wrong you just don't own up to it. You were utterly wrong about automatics so you just pointed your finger at the NRA and said "Look at them!!" Who in the NRA is saying we need "machine guns?" By the way
"Assault Weapons" are not Assault Rifles.

also try to figure out what a varmint rifle is before you comment on it. Or when wild boar are charging you often need more then one round to bring them down. (They don't care)

At 12/26/12 02:49 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I like how when you are wrong you just don't own up to it. You were utterly wrong about automatics so you just pointed your finger at the NRA and said "Look at them!!" Who in the NRA is saying we need "machine guns?" By the way
"Assault Weapons" are not Assault Rifles.

So you're a gun person and don't own an ak-47 or know anyone else that does? You don't know anyone that owns an uzi and you're a gun person? I don't own a single gun or have any redneck whitetrash friends and I still know people who are hiding away these ridiculous things. These guns are a problem, especially in gang shootings and flat out massacres. They are used by criminals because you can kill the most amount of people in the shortest span of time.

also try to figure out what a varmint rifle is before you comment on it. Or when wild boar are charging you often need more then one round to bring them down. (They don't care)

Might as well start packing some grenades on your hunting trips for good measure! Hunting is suppose to be about skill and actually taking a risk, risks other than your drunk buddy accidentally filling your face with lead.

Are you talking about civilian models which are still single shot? Most shootings are with pistols.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c rime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Knives kill more then your Semi-Auotmatic Rifles do

And I'm sorry you don't understand that the Kalashnikov civvies buy aren't automatic.

And once again do you know what semi-automatic means?

Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh by the way?

"The bomb consisted of about 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane, and motor-racing fuel.
On April 19, 1995, McVeigh drove the truck to the front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building just as its offices opened for the day. Before arriving, he stopped to light a 2 minute fuse. At 09:02, a large explosion destroyed the north half of the building. The explosion killed 168 people, including 19 children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others."

Oh my god you are dense you don't "hunt" vermin and when stopping boar from KILLING you you aren't hunting either. Coyotes will kill your animals, rats and other vermin will destroy your property and kill chicks and other small animals. You continue to comment when you don't even understand the terms you use.

At 12/26/12 04:12 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Are you talking about civilian models which are still single shot? Most shootings are with pistols.

Sure most of all shootings are with pistols, but most shootings invoke the attempted murder of one or two individuals. What guns do you think criminals turn to when they want to slaughter a mass of people?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c rime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Knives kill more then your Semi-Auotmatic Rifles do

Sure, a knife is a much cheaper and a much more EASILY OBTAINABLE weapon.

And once again do you know what semi-automatic means?

Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh by the way?

"The bomb consisted of about 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane, and motor-racing fuel.
On April 19, 1995, McVeigh drove the truck to the front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building just as its offices opened for the day. Before arriving, he stopped to light a 2 minute fuse. At 09:02, a large explosion destroyed the north half of the building. The explosion killed 168 people, including 19 children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others."

Whoa it totally makes sense now, I'm going to buy a lifted ass truck, load twenty guns in the back (all of which I need just to combat my fear of driving to work) and slap my NRA sticker right on the bumper! Entirely non sequitur just like the quote above.

Oh my god you are dense you don't "hunt" vermin and when stopping boar from KILLING you you aren't hunting either. Coyotes will kill your animals, rats and other vermin will destroy your property and kill chicks and other small animals. You continue to comment when you don't even understand the terms you use.

You're right, shooting vermin is not hunting, so I guess there's no problem in whipping out the good ol semi to wipe em out. By the way there are far more cost effective methods of pest control other than unloading rounds only into the pests you manage to find.

So tell me how to handle the coyote who has dug the sunk his teeth into the throat of a goat? I'm sure you've had to deal with plenty of them.
Most mass shootings occur with pistols too by the way... So I don't see how you think you can outlaw handguns?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
It remains the deadliest school shooting in America (Handguns)

Do you remember the Aurora shooting? Targeted a gun free theater instead of the closest theater, or the largest.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-ma ss-shootings-john-fund#

Oh and good job jumping the REAL point I was making. Killing happens monster killed many people without a gun.

You refuse to answer the questions or actually address some of the real points I have brought up. I can only come to the conclusion that your ignorance on the subject has led to an irrational fear of guns. Your lack of knowledge regarding automatic weapons supports this theory.

What is deadlier "Armor Piercing" or "Hollow Point" ? Now which one is often found in what kind of weapon?
I'll give you a hint I'd rather be shot with AP then HP.

Argh I'm sorry for my articious spelling and grammar tonight.