Continuous wrote

Woodkid wrote

002 wrote

Woodkid wrote

002 wrote

Woodkid wrote

GMC wrote Honestly they don't really need more laws. Laws ain't going to stop someone from killing some person

By that logic they should remove the laws which prohibit murder.
'Honestly, they don't really need more laws. Laws ain't going to stop someone from killing some person.'

He said we don't need more laws, not that we should take laws away...

He specifically said 'Laws ain't going to stop someone from killing some person.'
If we were in a world where guns being illegal was already a reality in America, his logic would be the same as saying that murder shouldn't be illegal because criminals aren't going to follow the law anyway.

As for your big tirade above about how guns being banned shouldn't happen, most of us aren't saying that guns should be banned outright. We're saying that more rules and regulations should be put on who can buy guns.

It's easy to argue against the people who say that guns should be banned outright, I think you'll have a harder time disagreeing with the people who just want more regulations, assuming you don't think anything should change with the current gun laws.

You did mention that most of the guns are stolen. One of the new rules which could be put in place is to ensure that people who want to buy a gun pass a gun storage safety check and must be able to demonstrate that they have a place in their home where they can securely store a gun. Is that going to stop all mass shooters? Probably not, but it will stop some.

I'm also not sure what the current law is on mentally unstable people living with mentally stable people. If that is how they are living then the mentally stable person should not be allowed to buy a gun and keep it in the same home as the mentally unstable person.

Small changes like this could lead to drastic countrywide change and hopefully reduce the number of mass shootings - and shootings in general - while giving those who can use guns safely the freedom to do so.

" his logic would be the same as saying that murder shouldn't be illegal because criminals aren't going to follow the law anyway." Where in the sam hell did you get that idea from? Making murder legal is almost an incentive to kill someone. That means I could kill the guy at Walmart who is a dick to me, that means I could kill my dad to get money if he won the lottery, etc. He simply said we don't need more laws, you are making a horrible assumption.

"One of the new rules which could be put in place is to ensure that people who want to buy a gun pass a gun storage safety check and must be able to demonstrate that they have a place in their home where they can securely store a gun." So now what happens when my house gets robbed? I have to hope I can get to the gun safe in time, remember the code, load my gun, and get ready before he enters the room? Bad idea. I get where you are coming from, it would have stopped people like the sandy hook killer, but it would put more lives in danger. Sure most of your guns should be locked away, but you should always have at least a pistol by your bed for self defense.

Unfortunately it is hard because most of the changes that would stop the killings, would make it easier for people to rob you.

If I'm not mistaken most mass shootings are committed with automatic weapons. So I'd be willing to accept people having a handgun by their beds as long as their automatic weapons are safely put away.

Handguns have a lot less killing potential than automatic weapons, so while mass shootings might still happen they would be a lot less devastating.

Besides, who said they have to be locked away in a safe? They could be in the bedroom of the owner, so long as the bedroom is secure and their son full of teenage angst can't get in.

Your making a fool out of your self. A handgun has the same potential as a automatic gun. Automatic guns are not used in most mass shootings. The typical weapon used is a pistol, not an assault weapon like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Assault weapons were used in 24.6 percent of mass shootings, handguns in 47.9 percent. And limiting the size of magazines weapons can carry wouldnt help, they said, because any ban would impact new sales and there is an ample supply of large capacity magazines already in circulation.

By killing potential, I meant that if you have 20 people stood in front of you and I have 20 people stood in front of me, you with a handgun and me with an assault rifle, I'm probably going to kill more than you.

But OK, I'll accept that most mass shootings are committed with handguns, that still doesn't make this point any less valid:

Besides, who said they have to be locked away in a safe? They could be in the bedroom of the owner, so long as the bedroom is secure and their son full of teenage angst can't get in.

Calling people fools is an easy way to get a topic closed and have warnings be given out too.

Pistols are easier to maneuver than a rifle. You can get 30+ round mags in pistols just like rifles. Pistol mags are easier to get in your pocket, I could probably have 5 in each pocket. I might be able to get 2 rifle mags in each pocket if I'm lucky. Pistols are more dangerous in an environment like a school than rifles are.

Uh...

Might wanna hide that IP.

A bullet is a bullet, it doesn't matter what type of gun it is shot from, the all can have the same potential. And can you give any examples were a person legally owned a automatic gun and did a mass shooting. It is pretty hard to get your hands on a automatic rifle with all of the regulations that the gov't has put on them.

Continuous wrote

Click to View Content

Woodkid wrote

Continuous wrote

Woodkid wrote

002 wrote

Woodkid wrote

002 wrote

Woodkid wrote

GMC wrote Honestly they don't really need more laws. Laws ain't going to stop someone from killing some person

By that logic they should remove the laws which prohibit murder.
'Honestly, they don't really need more laws. Laws ain't going to stop someone from killing some person.'

He said we don't need more laws, not that we should take laws away...

He specifically said 'Laws ain't going to stop someone from killing some person.'
If we were in a world where guns being illegal was already a reality in America, his logic would be the same as saying that murder shouldn't be illegal because criminals aren't going to follow the law anyway.

As for your big tirade above about how guns being banned shouldn't happen, most of us aren't saying that guns should be banned outright. We're saying that more rules and regulations should be put on who can buy guns.

It's easy to argue against the people who say that guns should be banned outright, I think you'll have a harder time disagreeing with the people who just want more regulations, assuming you don't think anything should change with the current gun laws.

You did mention that most of the guns are stolen. One of the new rules which could be put in place is to ensure that people who want to buy a gun pass a gun storage safety check and must be able to demonstrate that they have a place in their home where they can securely store a gun. Is that going to stop all mass shooters? Probably not, but it will stop some.

I'm also not sure what the current law is on mentally unstable people living with mentally stable people. If that is how they are living then the mentally stable person should not be allowed to buy a gun and keep it in the same home as the mentally unstable person.

Small changes like this could lead to drastic countrywide change and hopefully reduce the number of mass shootings - and shootings in general - while giving those who can use guns safely the freedom to do so.

" his logic would be the same as saying that murder shouldn't be illegal because criminals aren't going to follow the law anyway." Where in the sam hell did you get that idea from? Making murder legal is almost an incentive to kill someone. That means I could kill the guy at Walmart who is a dick to me, that means I could kill my dad to get money if he won the lottery, etc. He simply said we don't need more laws, you are making a horrible assumption.

"One of the new rules which could be put in place is to ensure that people who want to buy a gun pass a gun storage safety check and must be able to demonstrate that they have a place in their home where they can securely store a gun." So now what happens when my house gets robbed? I have to hope I can get to the gun safe in time, remember the code, load my gun, and get ready before he enters the room? Bad idea. I get where you are coming from, it would have stopped people like the sandy hook killer, but it would put more lives in danger. Sure most of your guns should be locked away, but you should always have at least a pistol by your bed for self defense.

Unfortunately it is hard because most of the changes that would stop the killings, would make it easier for people to rob you.

If I'm not mistaken most mass shootings are committed with automatic weapons. So I'd be willing to accept people having a handgun by their beds as long as their automatic weapons are safely put away.

Handguns have a lot less killing potential than automatic weapons, so while mass shootings might still happen they would be a lot less devastating.

Besides, who said they have to be locked away in a safe? They could be in the bedroom of the owner, so long as the bedroom is secure and their son full of teenage angst can't get in.

Your making a fool out of your self. A handgun has the same potential as a automatic gun. Automatic guns are not used in most mass shootings. The typical weapon used is a pistol, not an assault weapon like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Assault weapons were used in 24.6 percent of mass shootings, handguns in 47.9 percent. And limiting the size of magazines weapons can carry wouldnt help, they said, because any ban would impact new sales and there is an ample supply of large capacity magazines already in circulation.

By killing potential, I meant that if you have 20 people stood in front of you and I have 20 people stood in front of me, you with a handgun and me with an assault rifle, I'm probably going to kill more than you.

But OK, I'll accept that most mass shootings are committed with handguns, that still doesn't make this point any less valid:

Besides, who said they have to be locked away in a safe? They could be in the bedroom of the owner, so long as the bedroom is secure and their son full of teenage angst can't get in.

Calling people fools is an easy way to get a topic closed and have warnings be given out too.

A bullet is a bullet, it doesn't matter what type of gun it is shot from, the all can have the same potential. And can you give any examples were a person legally owned a automatic gun and did a mass shooting. It is pretty hard to get your hands on a automatic rifle with all of the regulations that the gov't has put on them.

My 18 year old brother got a semi auto AR-15 chambered in 7.62 within an hour. I think that is BS. There needs to be a cool down period or something.

002 wrote

Continuous wrote

Click to View Content

Woodkid wrote

Continuous wrote

Woodkid wrote

002 wrote

Woodkid wrote

002 wrote

Woodkid wrote

GMC wrote Honestly they don't really need more laws. Laws ain't going to stop someone from killing some person

By that logic they should remove the laws which prohibit murder.
'Honestly, they don't really need more laws. Laws ain't going to stop someone from killing some person.'

He said we don't need more laws, not that we should take laws away...

He specifically said 'Laws ain't going to stop someone from killing some person.'
If we were in a world where guns being illegal was already a reality in America, his logic would be the same as saying that murder shouldn't be illegal because criminals aren't going to follow the law anyway.

As for your big tirade above about how guns being banned shouldn't happen, most of us aren't saying that guns should be banned outright. We're saying that more rules and regulations should be put on who can buy guns.

It's easy to argue against the people who say that guns should be banned outright, I think you'll have a harder time disagreeing with the people who just want more regulations, assuming you don't think anything should change with the current gun laws.

You did mention that most of the guns are stolen. One of the new rules which could be put in place is to ensure that people who want to buy a gun pass a gun storage safety check and must be able to demonstrate that they have a place in their home where they can securely store a gun. Is that going to stop all mass shooters? Probably not, but it will stop some.

I'm also not sure what the current law is on mentally unstable people living with mentally stable people. If that is how they are living then the mentally stable person should not be allowed to buy a gun and keep it in the same home as the mentally unstable person.

Small changes like this could lead to drastic countrywide change and hopefully reduce the number of mass shootings - and shootings in general - while giving those who can use guns safely the freedom to do so.

" his logic would be the same as saying that murder shouldn't be illegal because criminals aren't going to follow the law anyway." Where in the sam hell did you get that idea from? Making murder legal is almost an incentive to kill someone. That means I could kill the guy at Walmart who is a dick to me, that means I could kill my dad to get money if he won the lottery, etc. He simply said we don't need more laws, you are making a horrible assumption.

"One of the new rules which could be put in place is to ensure that people who want to buy a gun pass a gun storage safety check and must be able to demonstrate that they have a place in their home where they can securely store a gun." So now what happens when my house gets robbed? I have to hope I can get to the gun safe in time, remember the code, load my gun, and get ready before he enters the room? Bad idea. I get where you are coming from, it would have stopped people like the sandy hook killer, but it would put more lives in danger. Sure most of your guns should be locked away, but you should always have at least a pistol by your bed for self defense.

Unfortunately it is hard because most of the changes that would stop the killings, would make it easier for people to rob you.

If I'm not mistaken most mass shootings are committed with automatic weapons. So I'd be willing to accept people having a handgun by their beds as long as their automatic weapons are safely put away.

Handguns have a lot less killing potential than automatic weapons, so while mass shootings might still happen they would be a lot less devastating.

Besides, who said they have to be locked away in a safe? They could be in the bedroom of the owner, so long as the bedroom is secure and their son full of teenage angst can't get in.

Your making a fool out of your self. A handgun has the same potential as a automatic gun. Automatic guns are not used in most mass shootings. The typical weapon used is a pistol, not an assault weapon like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Assault weapons were used in 24.6 percent of mass shootings, handguns in 47.9 percent. And limiting the size of magazines weapons can carry wouldnt help, they said, because any ban would impact new sales and there is an ample supply of large capacity magazines already in circulation.

By killing potential, I meant that if you have 20 people stood in front of you and I have 20 people stood in front of me, you with a handgun and me with an assault rifle, I'm probably going to kill more than you.

But OK, I'll accept that most mass shootings are committed with handguns, that still doesn't make this point any less valid:

Besides, who said they have to be locked away in a safe? They could be in the bedroom of the owner, so long as the bedroom is secure and their son full of teenage angst can't get in.

Calling people fools is an easy way to get a topic closed and have warnings be given out too.

A bullet is a bullet, it doesn't matter what type of gun it is shot from, the all can have the same potential. And can you give any examples were a person legally owned a automatic gun and did a mass shooting. It is pretty hard to get your hands on a automatic rifle with all of the regulations that the gov't has put on them.

My 18 year old brother got a semi auto AR-15 chambered in 7.62 within an hour. I think that is BS. There needs to be a cool down period or something.

Semi auto and automatic is two different things, but there should be a cooldown period.

It's not too hard to make it full auto though.

Everytime there is a shooting in America. Everyone says something needs to change. Nothing does and a month or two later there is another shooting.
America needs to take a leaf out of Australias book.

Our last mass shooting was in 1996, The Port Arthur Massacre. Port Arthur is pretty much a historical sight where convicts were held and is a big tourist attraction.

Since then strict gun laws have been in place. You got to go through testing and filling out forms to show that you are responsible to hold a firearm.

Since then we have not had a mass shooting. In 20 years, not one mass shooting.
Yes during that time people still get shot, people still die from guns. Yes there are illegal firearms out there. That will never be stopped.
But just think how many lives have potentially been saved since bringing in the new gun laws.

In America, a young adult could walk in a pretty much get a weapon with ease. Does not matter what the mental state of that person is. They can go in get a weapon and do what they please.

Yet, there will be arguments for Americans saying they have a right for bare arms and its for "protection".

How many more lives must be taken before people wake up to themselves?

America. You got to change. It is not the 1980s anymore. You should not be able to get your hands on a firearm so easily. Not everyone should have the right to carry a firearm.

Continuous wrote

Click to View Content

Woodkid wrote

Continuous wrote

Woodkid wrote

002 wrote

Woodkid wrote

002 wrote

Woodkid wrote

GMC wrote Honestly they don't really need more laws. Laws ain't going to stop someone from killing some person

By that logic they should remove the laws which prohibit murder.
'Honestly, they don't really need more laws. Laws ain't going to stop someone from killing some person.'

He said we don't need more laws, not that we should take laws away...

He specifically said 'Laws ain't going to stop someone from killing some person.'
If we were in a world where guns being illegal was already a reality in America, his logic would be the same as saying that murder shouldn't be illegal because criminals aren't going to follow the law anyway.

As for your big tirade above about how guns being banned shouldn't happen, most of us aren't saying that guns should be banned outright. We're saying that more rules and regulations should be put on who can buy guns.

It's easy to argue against the people who say that guns should be banned outright, I think you'll have a harder time disagreeing with the people who just want more regulations, assuming you don't think anything should change with the current gun laws.

You did mention that most of the guns are stolen. One of the new rules which could be put in place is to ensure that people who want to buy a gun pass a gun storage safety check and must be able to demonstrate that they have a place in their home where they can securely store a gun. Is that going to stop all mass shooters? Probably not, but it will stop some.

I'm also not sure what the current law is on mentally unstable people living with mentally stable people. If that is how they are living then the mentally stable person should not be allowed to buy a gun and keep it in the same home as the mentally unstable person.

Small changes like this could lead to drastic countrywide change and hopefully reduce the number of mass shootings - and shootings in general - while giving those who can use guns safely the freedom to do so.

" his logic would be the same as saying that murder shouldn't be illegal because criminals aren't going to follow the law anyway." Where in the sam hell did you get that idea from? Making murder legal is almost an incentive to kill someone. That means I could kill the guy at Walmart who is a dick to me, that means I could kill my dad to get money if he won the lottery, etc. He simply said we don't need more laws, you are making a horrible assumption.

"One of the new rules which could be put in place is to ensure that people who want to buy a gun pass a gun storage safety check and must be able to demonstrate that they have a place in their home where they can securely store a gun." So now what happens when my house gets robbed? I have to hope I can get to the gun safe in time, remember the code, load my gun, and get ready before he enters the room? Bad idea. I get where you are coming from, it would have stopped people like the sandy hook killer, but it would put more lives in danger. Sure most of your guns should be locked away, but you should always have at least a pistol by your bed for self defense.

Unfortunately it is hard because most of the changes that would stop the killings, would make it easier for people to rob you.

If I'm not mistaken most mass shootings are committed with automatic weapons. So I'd be willing to accept people having a handgun by their beds as long as their automatic weapons are safely put away.

Handguns have a lot less killing potential than automatic weapons, so while mass shootings might still happen they would be a lot less devastating.

Besides, who said they have to be locked away in a safe? They could be in the bedroom of the owner, so long as the bedroom is secure and their son full of teenage angst can't get in.

Your making a fool out of your self. A handgun has the same potential as a automatic gun. Automatic guns are not used in most mass shootings. The typical weapon used is a pistol, not an assault weapon like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Assault weapons were used in 24.6 percent of mass shootings, handguns in 47.9 percent. And limiting the size of magazines weapons can carry wouldnt help, they said, because any ban would impact new sales and there is an ample supply of large capacity magazines already in circulation.

By killing potential, I meant that if you have 20 people stood in front of you and I have 20 people stood in front of me, you with a handgun and me with an assault rifle, I'm probably going to kill more than you.

But OK, I'll accept that most mass shootings are committed with handguns, that still doesn't make this point any less valid:

Besides, who said they have to be locked away in a safe? They could be in the bedroom of the owner, so long as the bedroom is secure and their son full of teenage angst can't get in.

Calling people fools is an easy way to get a topic closed and have warnings be given out too.

A bullet is a bullet, it doesn't matter what type of gun it is shot from, the all can have the same potential. And can you give any examples were a person legally owned a automatic gun and did a mass shooting. It is pretty hard to get your hands on a automatic rifle with all of the regulations that the gov't has put on them.

Why does it matter if the gun was legally owned by the person? My point was that they are stolen and used for mass shootings which is why they should be securely put away from people who don't own them legally.

Obviously there wouldn't be any need for that if the person legally owned the gun because they would have the key to get to it.

@002 Pistols are also semi-auto which means a slower fire rate. The time it takes you to fire those 30 rounds most of the people will have dispersed.
A full auto, on the other hand, could hit most of the people before anyone has realized what's happening.