"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefor what he must be taught to fear is his victim" -Jeff Cooper.

Vox wrote

"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefor what he must be taught to fear is his victim" -Jeff Cooper.

It is hard to make a person scared of unarmed elementary students(Sandy hook). But i agree with you, if more people had ccw's or were properly trained on how to use guns, then i think that more would be criminals would be scared to commit crimes.

Continuous wrote

Woodkid 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.

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.

It doesn't matter if you put the guns in a safe or a "safe place", people can still get to them and people believe or not can steal a safe(you act like there is some godly place where no one but the owner can get to.). There isn't really a way to keep people from doing anything that they want to, if someone wants to do a mass shooting then you can't really stop them if they set there mind to it.
As for you saying that pistols have a slower fire rate, i will just leave this here...

Yes a pistol does have a slower fire rate, but most people don't go full auto, they normally do burst of shots. In the video the guy shot 8 shots in less than 1 second, that is a speed that could keep up with a full auto gun.

Yes, because the average person can fire as fast as that guy.
That's like saying that everybody should be able to run away from mass shooters because of this guy, so there's no need for gun reform:

Of course it matters if you put a gun in a safe place. A locked metal cabinet isn't going to just be smashed open.
If the guns are harder to get to there is more chance of them being caught in the process.
The fact that they would be away from children should be enough to convince anyone that it's a good idea.

This is what's wrong



The guy said "Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight"

The media is DIRECTLY responsible for this happening and will not stop because they are irresponsible and have a lot to gain from making the shooter a celebrity.

Prepare for more bad knee-jerk lawmaking and no increase in funding for mental health programs.

Prepare for it to become even more difficult for responsible citizens to get training and carry guns to protect themselves and others.

Prepare for more politicians telling you the second amendment is actually about hunting and concealed carry and that James Madison didn't actually know what he was doing.

Woodkid wrote

Continuous wrote

Woodkid 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.

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.

It doesn't matter if you put the guns in a safe or a "safe place", people can still get to them and people believe or not can steal a safe(you act like there is some godly place where no one but the owner can get to.). There isn't really a way to keep people from doing anything that they want to, if someone wants to do a mass shooting then you can't really stop them if they set there mind to it.
As for you saying that pistols have a slower fire rate, i will just leave this here...

Yes a pistol does have a slower fire rate, but most people don't go full auto, they normally do burst of shots. In the video the guy shot 8 shots in less than 1 second, that is a speed that could keep up with a full auto gun.

Yes, because the average person can fire as fast as that guy.
That's like saying that everybody should be able to run away from mass shooters because of this guy, so there's no need for gun reform:

Click to View Content

Of course it matters if you put a gun in a safe place. A locked metal cabinet isn't going to just be smashed open.
If the guns are harder to get to there is more chance of them being caught in the process.
The fact that they would be away from children should be enough to convince anyone that it's a good idea.

Not everyone can shoot that fast, but the person who does the mass shooting may be able to shoot faster than average, I could smash open a metal cabinet and it easier than you thing to get into a safe than you think. Im 15 and i can pick houselocks and with the proper tools i can easily pry open some safes and burn threw others.

Wasn't the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from wild animals and us Brits back in 1787?...
I don't think laws should be added or removed, guns will still be out there in USA. I think they should be updated to suit modern times.

Zayev wrote Wasn't the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from wild animals and us Brits back in 1787?...
I don't think laws should be added or removed, guns will still be out there in USA. I think they should be updated to suit modern times.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

The 2nd amendment gives the people the ability to overthrow government. It doesn't matter if they use it, but they have to have it.

As someone from the UK it does boggle the mind but whatever makes you feel safe I guess.

Fair enough, cheers for the insight.
In the UK we only have rifles and shotguns. Public aren't allowed to have pistols or automatic weapons. If it is under 12Ft/lb then as long as you are 18 you can buy one. If it is more than 12ft/lb then you have to acquire a license which gets the police involved to check loads of things.
Being so strict on laws and making it harder to acquire a gun i think helps us, the only people who have anything more than an air rifle are generally farmers/hunters, not your average Joe.

What is it? 1 in 3 people own at least 1 gun in the US? It is too late to simply take guns away. All you need is one gun to tear apart and figure out how to build another. Too many people own guns to simply take them away, I think you could get it down to 1 in 5 people own guns, but that is still a couple people per each block. I would also like to share this graph with you.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Let's look at the highest one up there, Alaska. For more than 60k out of 100k owning guns, and only 20 people per 100k die from guns? That is a pretty small amount. I believe I already brought this up, but 300 million people live in the US, and 30k people die each year from firearms which is 0.00009404388% of the population (yes that was Googled). That is a VERY small amount of people dying each year to warrant taking away guns from everyone because a few people are morons.

May I run another thing buy you guys real quick? Approximately 11,783 babies are born EACH DAY in the US. 3 days and you already made up for how many people are going to die in the next 362 days.

One more thing, while it is cancer awareness month, did you know that currently, 7.6 million people die from cancer worldwide every year? That is a lot bigger number. Why don't we focus our efforts and money on curing cancer instead of trying to get rid of guns.