3 mass shooting, three semi automtic rifles

[westwall]

Why do you want to take my weapons? I did nothing wrong.

I shoot hundreds of rounds when I go shooting with my wife and daughters .

It's not about you; it's about the type of gun and the damage it can do. To me it is a form of risk reduction. Nothing is perfect and I'm not saying you did anything wrong.

The ultimate risk reduction is for you to crawl under your bed and stay there, even though there are risks associated even with doing that. The bed could fall, the house could catch fire, etc.

That's not much of a life!

I don't know where you get that solution from anything I've said. I have a right to NOT expect to be gunned down on the way to the grocery store, goddamit, and you're not going to change my mind. What about my rights and the rights of everyone minding their own business who happens to be out and about in public?

You have a right not to be shot by a criminal? I think everyone would agree that would be ideal. You do NOT have the right to take away my weapons just to make you feel better.

If it made us all safer, perhaps we should have the right to take away just the semiautomatic rifles, though.

They already did that in Paris France. Net result over 130 DEAD. How exactly is that a endorsement for gun bans?

 

[jc456]

Lefties who never set foot in the field often rely on political dogma and left wing blogs to frame their pathetic argument rather than reality. They are quick to call law abiding hunters "pathetic" if they have a quick second shot in a semi-automatic rifle to kill an animal rather than letting it run off and bleed to death. It really gets crazy when the anti-gun left presumes to judge the right of a law abiding citizen to use the same semi-auto rifle as a home defense weapon.

I get it. You feel sorry for the animal you just made a bad shot on.

so are you in favor of stricter sentences for using guns in a crime? say 50 years in prison for a crime with a gun? why are you against that?

We already have the fullest jails in the world and have the most guns. It's clear we need to do something else.

so you protect criminals. hmmmm your issue isn't the nut job, it's the law abiding people. great way to step out.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The last three whack jobs that went on a shooting spree used semi automatic rifles. The last two wore tactical gear.

Background checks?

If all these nutsos want them then I suggest that the idea some one wants them is a sign they are mentally off.

The more they assault type rifles want, the more whacked they are. Probably at least at by the square of that number.

Have two, 4 times as as crazy. Have 4, 16 times as crazy.

Next, add another factor of ten for every piece of "tactical gear" they own.

Really, you are way off the deep end if you have to dress up in this tactical gear.

Real sane gun owners wouldn't own an assault type rifle. Not good for hunting, not good for self defense. They would be safe.

Just those crazy fucks running around in tactical gear toting their AR-15, round them up & send them to the psycho ward.

/——/There is no such thing as an assault weapon, try as hard as you may to demonize an inanimate object.

 

[Brain357]

Try every single industrialized country in the world. Not bans, necessarily, but strict gun control. They are not dying by the gazillions from shooting each other.

you know who had the strictest gun control in the country? Chicago. Duh

Too bad the states around them don't. Ask a Chicago cop where the illegal guns are coming from. He'll tell you.

what's that have to do with anything? the fact is the city of chicago once had the strictest gun laws and the most violence with guns. The law abiding citizen couldn't even buy a gun. It had to go to court to get that changed. so your comeback is weak. New York has other states with weaker laws and didn't end up like chicago. so, the statistics don't back your theory. try again.

Why is it that anytime someone talks about problems in the black community, Chicago comes up. Anytime we are talking about gun control nationwide, Chicago comes up. Why is that? A deflection, perhaps?

Why is it that you wish to punish tens of millions of law abiding people for the criminal misdeeds of less than 50,000 people?

You can't have a weapon for mass killing. What a horrible punishment. Such a snowflake.

 

[jc456]

Lefties who never set foot in the field often rely on political dogma and left wing blogs to frame their pathetic argument rather than reality. They are quick to call law abiding hunters "pathetic" if they have a quick second shot in a semi-automatic rifle to kill an animal rather than letting it run off and bleed to death. It really gets crazy when the anti-gun left presumes to judge the right of a law abiding citizen to use the same semi-auto rifle as a home defense weapon.

I get it. You feel sorry for the animal you just made a bad shot on.

so are you in favor of stricter sentences for using guns in a crime? say 50 years in prison for a crime with a gun? why are you against that?

We already have the fullest jails in the world and have the most guns. It's clear we need to do something else.

or, we could just say let's give out death sentences and just resolve the planet of the criminal with a gun. I mean that nasty gun is awful and you want to take its life.

 

[Brain357]

Lefties who never set foot in the field often rely on political dogma and left wing blogs to frame their pathetic argument rather than reality. They are quick to call law abiding hunters "pathetic" if they have a quick second shot in a semi-automatic rifle to kill an animal rather than letting it run off and bleed to death. It really gets crazy when the anti-gun left presumes to judge the right of a law abiding citizen to use the same semi-auto rifle as a home defense weapon.

I get it. You feel sorry for the animal you just made a bad shot on.

so are you in favor of stricter sentences for using guns in a crime? say 50 years in prison for a crime with a gun? why are you against that?

We already have the fullest jails in the world and have the most guns. It's clear we need to do something else.

so you protect criminals. hmmmm your issue isn't the nut job, it's the law abiding people. great way to step out.

No. I stated facts. We have the fullest jails in the world and the most guns.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why do you want to take my weapons? I did nothing wrong.

I shoot hundreds of rounds when I go shooting with my wife and daughters .

It's not about you; it's about the type of gun and the damage it can do. To me it is a form of risk reduction. Nothing is perfect and I'm not saying you did anything wrong.

You people make it about ALL gun owners.

The current thinking is one person kills with a gun then we have to do something to ALL gun owners .

If that's the way you want to live then be consistent and apply that "logic" to all laws

Perhaps it wouldn't HAVE to be about "all" gun owners if gun owners were willing to have more regulation around who can own a gun, etc. I really like the sound of the recent law in California that allows law enforcement to take a person's guns temporarily for good cause and then it is adjudicated by a judge. That law nationwide might have prevented two of the shootings we've recently had.

again, we're asking what it is you want.

A ban on semiautomatic rifles. Limited size magazines for handguns. More accurate reporting of arrests to the federal data bank that does background checks on gun purchases. The ability of law enforcement to confiscate an individual's weapons temporarily, pending a speedy hearing, if the individual is acting erratic and homicidal or making threats on people's lives.

More accurate reporting? No new law. I know of two incidents where this was messed up: Texas and Charleston. You can legislate the reporting agencies to do a better job.

If they are acting erratic and homicidal, you can already lock someone up. No new law.

The others we already discussed that you are not punishing criminals but the law abiding.

So, in reality, you have nothing.

 

[jc456]

you know who had the strictest gun control in the country? Chicago. Duh

Too bad the states around them don't. Ask a Chicago cop where the illegal guns are coming from. He'll tell you.

what's that have to do with anything? the fact is the city of chicago once had the strictest gun laws and the most violence with guns. The law abiding citizen couldn't even buy a gun. It had to go to court to get that changed. so your comeback is weak. New York has other states with weaker laws and didn't end up like chicago. so, the statistics don't back your theory. try again.

Why is it that anytime someone talks about problems in the black community, Chicago comes up. Anytime we are talking about gun control nationwide, Chicago comes up. Why is that? A deflection, perhaps?

Why is it that you wish to punish tens of millions of law abiding people for the criminal misdeeds of less than 50,000 people?

You can't have a weapon for mass killing. What a horrible punishment. Such a snowflake.

where has that worked? name one place.

 

[jc456]

Why do you want to take my weapons? I did nothing wrong.

I shoot hundreds of rounds when I go shooting with my wife and daughters .

It's not about you; it's about the type of gun and the damage it can do. To me it is a form of risk reduction. Nothing is perfect and I'm not saying you did anything wrong.

The ultimate risk reduction is for you to crawl under your bed and stay there, even though there are risks associated even with doing that. The bed could fall, the house could catch fire, etc.

That's not much of a life!

I don't know where you get that solution from anything I've said. I have a right to NOT expect to be gunned down on the way to the grocery store, goddamit, and you're not going to change my mind. What about my rights and the rights of everyone minding their own business who happens to be out and about in public?

You have a right not to be shot by a criminal? I think everyone would agree that would be ideal. You do NOT have the right to take away my weapons just to make you feel better.

If it made us all safer, perhaps we should have the right to take away just the semiautomatic rifles, though.

why? a revolver is a semi automatic gun.

 

[Crixus]

You people make it about ALL gun owners.

The current thinking is one person kills with a gun then we have to do something to ALL gun owners .

If that's the way you want to live then be consistent and apply that "logic" to all laws

Perhaps it wouldn't HAVE to be about "all" gun owners if gun owners were willing to have more regulation around who can own a gun, etc. I really like the sound of the recent law in California that allows law enforcement to take a person's guns temporarily for good cause and then it is adjudicated by a judge. That law nationwide might have prevented two of the shootings we've recently had.

LOL! You just said you want the government to take peoples guns. Someone tries to take mine and if I can I'll shoot at least one of them.

Your life must not be worth much. Die for an inanimate object? Sad.

Better than being on my knees like you coward.

You are the coward hiding behind your guns while women and children die.

Tissue?

 

[OldLady]

Perhaps it wouldn't HAVE to be about "all" gun owners if gun owners were willing to have more regulation around who can own a gun, etc. I really like the sound of the recent law in California that allows law enforcement to take a person's guns temporarily for good cause and then it is adjudicated by a judge. That law nationwide might have prevented two of the shootings we've recently had.

again, we're asking what it is you want.

A ban on semiautomatic rifles. Limited size magazines for handguns. More accurate reporting of arrests to the federal data bank that does background checks on gun purchases. The ability of law enforcement to confiscate an individual's weapons temporarily, pending a speedy hearing, if the individual is acting erratic and homicidal or making threats on people's lives.

No ban has ever worked yet so what makes you think they will all of sudden magically work now?

It's reduction, not magic fairy dust. And it works EVERYWHERE it is used.

It has worked NOWHERE. The reason why Europe was less violent is they had killed off all of their violent men in two world wars. Here in the USA we didn't. We still have them, and they have been augmented by violent third world illegal aliens who have brought their cultures of violence with them. Take a look at all of the violent crime that is being committed out there and it is black on black, and hispanic on hispanic gangs that are doing the majority of the shooting. Why the fuck should I have my rights taken away from me based on the criminal activities of violent gang members?

People who will ignore every law you pass?

Now, Europe is getting a healthy dose of third world refugees moving to their countries and lo and behold violent crime is sky rocketing as is gun crime. Go figure.

I never fight with a mod, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick on this one.
There is plenty of evidence to the contrary and I am sure you have been shown those facts before, so I won't trouble myself presenting any of it again--this isn't your first rodeo.
How you can blame the mass shootings like Vegas, Sutherland, and the one yesterday in California, not to mention all the ones before, on illegal aliens, for heavens sake? I am talking about our homicidal culture in combination with lethal weapons that are owned by all and sundry. It's a disaster waiting to happen and it seems to be happening every week, every month. Innocent people including kids are dying, and it's not illegals!
That's all I'm going to say to you about it.

 

[OldLady]

It's not about you; it's about the type of gun and the damage it can do. To me it is a form of risk reduction. Nothing is perfect and I'm not saying you did anything wrong.

The ultimate risk reduction is for you to crawl under your bed and stay there, even though there are risks associated even with doing that. The bed could fall, the house could catch fire, etc.

That's not much of a life!

I don't know where you get that solution from anything I've said. I have a right to NOT expect to be gunned down on the way to the grocery store, goddamit, and you're not going to change my mind. What about my rights and the rights of everyone minding their own business who happens to be out and about in public?

You have a right not to be shot by a criminal? I think everyone would agree that would be ideal. You do NOT have the right to take away my weapons just to make you feel better.

If it made us all safer, perhaps we should have the right to take away just the semiautomatic rifles, though.

why? a revolver is a semi automatic gun.

I replied to that earlier. Read the thread.

 

[Nosmo King]

People really need to learn the difference between an assault rifle and semi automatic.

Who cares? A semi automatic sure did kill
a lot in Vegas.

A gun lover will drown you with the minutiae and tedium of the lexicon of all things firearm. They will point out your folly in wadding into the world of guns and attempting a solution to the havoc guns bring.

They will tell you that as no law designed by the mind of man can act as a panacea, no further laws need be written. The perfect is the enemy of the pragmatic. They will tell you that gun control laws are ineffective. They will say gun control laws are unconstitutional. They will tell you that any gun control efforts will inevitably end in forcible confiscation of all guns.

And that attitude renders them as complicit in mass shootings. As gun lovers cannot imagine any solution to the problem, as they defend the use of these weapons, we can reliably point to gun lovers as co-conspirators in gun violence.

Gun lovers dismiss any discussion of solutions. They have factored in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a society where weapons of warfare are available to everyone. Great n lovers and their powerful lobbies are therefore complicit murderers until they collectively assume some responsibility for the scourge of gun violence.

 

[jc456]

again, we're asking what it is you want.

A ban on semiautomatic rifles. Limited size magazines for handguns. More accurate reporting of arrests to the federal data bank that does background checks on gun purchases. The ability of law enforcement to confiscate an individual's weapons temporarily, pending a speedy hearing, if the individual is acting erratic and homicidal or making threats on people's lives.

No ban has ever worked yet so what makes you think they will all of sudden magically work now?

It's reduction, not magic fairy dust. And it works EVERYWHERE it is used.

It has worked NOWHERE. The reason why Europe was less violent is they had killed off all of their violent men in two world wars. Here in the USA we didn't. We still have them, and they have been augmented by violent third world illegal aliens who have brought their cultures of violence with them. Take a look at all of the violent crime that is being committed out there and it is black on black, and hispanic on hispanic gangs that are doing the majority of the shooting. Why the fuck should I have my rights taken away from me based on the criminal activities of violent gang members?

People who will ignore every law you pass?

Now, Europe is getting a healthy dose of third world refugees moving to their countries and lo and behold violent crime is sky rocketing as is gun crime. Go figure.

I never fight with a mod, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick on this one.
There is plenty of evidence to the contrary and I am sure you have been shown those facts before, so I won't trouble myself presenting any of it again--this isn't your first rodeo.
How you can blame the mass shootings like Vegas, Sutherland, and the one yesterday in California, not to mention all the ones before, on illegal aliens, for heavens sake? I am talking about our homicidal culture in combination with lethal weapons that are owned by all and sundry. It's a disaster waiting to happen and it seems to be happening every week, every month. Innocent people including kids are dying, and it's not illegals!
That's all I'm going to say to you about it.

you wish to blame law abiding people for Las Vegas and Texas? is that what you're saying? how is it they had anything to do with them?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

OK, good job whackos

We got the truck argument.

We got the definition of assault rifle argument

We got the good guy with a gun argument

We got input from the Limbaugh dittoheads

I know you can do better.

They keep saying the same BS while the corpses pile up. Meanwhile the only proven solution is gun control.

Show us a single country where a gun ban has worked.

Try every single industrialized country in the world. Not bans, necessarily, but strict gun control. They are not dying by the gazillions from shooting each other.

you know who had the strictest gun control in the country? Chicago. Duh

Too bad the states around them don't. Ask a Chicago cop where the illegal guns are coming from. He'll tell you.

What keeps someone from buying a gun legally in Illinois and then illegally taking it into Chicago?

 

[OldLady]

It's not about you; it's about the type of gun and the damage it can do. To me it is a form of risk reduction. Nothing is perfect and I'm not saying you did anything wrong.

The ultimate risk reduction is for you to crawl under your bed and stay there, even though there are risks associated even with doing that. The bed could fall, the house could catch fire, etc.

That's not much of a life!

I don't know where you get that solution from anything I've said. I have a right to NOT expect to be gunned down on the way to the grocery store, goddamit, and you're not going to change my mind. What about my rights and the rights of everyone minding their own business who happens to be out and about in public?

You have a right not to be shot by a criminal? I think everyone would agree that would be ideal. You do NOT have the right to take away my weapons just to make you feel better.

If it made us all safer, perhaps we should have the right to take away just the semiautomatic rifles, though.

They already did that in Paris France. Net result over 130 DEAD. How exactly is that a endorsement for gun bans?

Attacks by an organized terrorist organization are not under discussion here.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

People really need to learn the difference between an assault rifle and semi automatic.

Who cares? A semi automatic sure did kill
a lot in Vegas.

A gun lover will drown you with the minutiae and tedium of the lexicon of all things firearm. They will point out your folly in wadding into the world of guns and attempting a solution to the havoc guns bring.

They will tell you that as no law designed by the mind of man can act as a panacea, no further laws need be written. The perfect is the enemy of the pragmatic. They will tell you that gun control laws are ineffective. They will say gun control laws are unconstitutional. They will tell you that any gun control efforts will inevitably end in forcible confiscation of all guns.

And that attitude renders them as complicit in mass shootings. As gun lovers cannot imagine any solution to the problem, as they defend the use of these weapons, we can reliably point to gun lovers as co-conspirators in gun violence.

Gun lovers dismiss any discussion of solutions. They have factored in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a society where weapons of warfare are available to everyone. Great n lovers and their powerful lobbies are therefore complicit murderers until they collectively assume some responsibility for the scourge of gun violence.

I note you have no suggestions either because you are complicit in the ignorance of the gun grabbers.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The ultimate risk reduction is for you to crawl under your bed and stay there, even though there are risks associated even with doing that. The bed could fall, the house could catch fire, etc.

That's not much of a life!

I don't know where you get that solution from anything I've said. I have a right to NOT expect to be gunned down on the way to the grocery store, goddamit, and you're not going to change my mind. What about my rights and the rights of everyone minding their own business who happens to be out and about in public?

You have a right not to be shot by a criminal? I think everyone would agree that would be ideal. You do NOT have the right to take away my weapons just to make you feel better.

If it made us all safer, perhaps we should have the right to take away just the semiautomatic rifles, though.

They already did that in Paris France. Net result over 130 DEAD. How exactly is that a endorsement for gun bans?

Attacks by an organized terrorist organization are not under discussion here.

Why? Were their guns legal in France?

 

[OldLady]

They keep saying the same BS while the corpses pile up. Meanwhile the only proven solution is gun control.

Show us a single country where a gun ban has worked.

Try every single industrialized country in the world. Not bans, necessarily, but strict gun control. They are not dying by the gazillions from shooting each other.

you know who had the strictest gun control in the country? Chicago. Duh

Too bad the states around them don't. Ask a Chicago cop where the illegal guns are coming from. He'll tell you.

What keeps someone from buying a gun legally in Illinois and then illegally taking it into Chicago?

That's part of the problem. If your neighbor makes it easy to buy guns, people will do exactly that.

 

[blackhawk]

People really need to learn the difference between an assault rifle and semi automatic.

Who cares? A semi automatic sure did kill
a lot in Vegas.

No a man using a modified semi automatic did. Guns don’t fire on their own or modify themselves.