You can't have my guns.

[Spicedaddy]

Wild ideas:

-Limit handguns to 6 or 8 shots per magazine. (You don't live in a Hollywood movie, once someone's been shot once or twice, they usually back off, or die. If there's a few bad guys, the others will run away after the first 2 or 3 guys are shot. And if you can't hit someone with 6 or 8 shots, then you suck at aiming and a gun does nothing for you.)

-Ban the semi-auto rifles (AR-15, etc., basically anything that's not used for hunting) They're made for the army, not 20 year-old nerds who want to replicate their Call Of Duty career...

But if Obummer is dumb enough to try he will be dealing with a new American Revolution. and there are FAR more people with guns than there are Police and Military to come take them.

LOL, sorry but you're not overtaking the US military no matter how many guns you have. That excuse for owning guns is completely retarded.

Anyways, just my Canadian opinion. We buy guns for hunting mostly, not to wack off to or shoot at trees.

 

[x-alki]

After reading a lot of posts I have come to the conclusion that the whackjobs in this thread aren't the responsible gun owners.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Wild ideas:

-Limit handguns to 6 or 8 shots per magazine. (You don't live in a Hollywood movie, once someone's been shot once or twice, they usually back off, or die. If there's a few bad guys, the others will run away after the first 2 or 3 guys are shot. And if you can't hit someone with 6 or 8 shots, then you suck at aiming and a gun does nothing for you.)

Unless you have a gun with stopping power, 2 rounds isn't going to stop someone immediately unless they're well placed. In times of panic you can easily get off a few shots quickly. So if there's a group of 4 trying to gangrape you and you shoot 2 of them with your 8 shots, what are the other 2 going to do? Run away when you run out of bullets? Or beat the living shit out of you?

-Ban the semi-auto rifles (AR-15, etc., basically anything that's not used for hunting) They're made for the army, not 20 year-old nerds who want to replicate their Call Of Duty career...

They're semi auto rifles. I agree if you don't want someone going full auto with a cheap AK-47 import, but you know people going into rampages typically go in with handguns. With the Sandy Hook guy I don't even see how much of an advantage he gained by using his .223 rifle. Shooting at a distance he would've had an advantage over his handguns, but at CQB, the handguns would've been more deadly

LOL, sorry but you're not overtaking the US military no matter how many guns you have. That excuse for owning guns is completely retarded.

Anyways, just my Canadian opinion. We buy guns for hunting mostly, not to wack off to or shoot at trees.

The whole government tyranny argument is ridiculous. If the US descends into a complete anarchy, I'm not going to spend my time living in a war torn region like Iraq. I'd move the hell out. But you know there are those who have that as their fantasy. It's like the zombie apocalypse fanatics and the y2k fanatics. Sounds cool, but not realistic AT ALL.

 

[Blackjack200]

If you have a way to limit the opportunities for mentally insane criminals, without having any effect on law-abiding citizens, I'd love to hear it.

I haven't suggested that I have such a way. In fact, that's pretty much why I favor a general ban.

Wild ideas:

-Limit handguns to 6 or 8 shots per magazine. (You don't live in a Hollywood movie, once someone's been shot once or twice, they usually back off, or die. If there's a few bad guys, the others will run away after the first 2 or 3 guys are shot. And if you can't hit someone with 6 or 8 shots, then you suck at aiming and a gun does nothing for you.)

What will that do? High capacity magazines are already owned by many people, if you ban them now, it will only drive the price up (but not that high, think $100 - $200) which means if someone wants to shoot up a school, all they need to do is spend a little more on their mags. Even if you could get rid of all the high capacity magazines, how long does it take to swap out the smaller mags? A second? How does that help?

-Ban the semi-auto rifles (AR-15, etc., basically anything that's not used for hunting) They're made for the army, not 20 year-old nerds who want to replicate their Call Of Duty career...

I'm not convinced that the shooter could not have done just as much damage with a pump action shotgun.

 

[sixone]

I haven't suggested that I have such a way. In fact, that's pretty much why I favor a general ban.

We've already banned marijuana and other drugs. How's that working out?

 

[Blackjack200]

We've already banned marijuana and other drugs. How's that working out?

Probably about as well as a gun ban would work out if I could grow guns under flourescent lights.

 

[CVSiN]

But if "Mentally Insane Criminals" will "find a way to kill the same people they did with or without guns", why does it matter if we keep guns out of their hands?

Lol.

that is exactly my point.. they will find a way or something to use as as weapon with or without gun bans.

Which is why all this is dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[sixone]

Probably about as well as a gun ban would work out if I could grow guns under flourescent lights.

Do you really think that people who couldn't get guns wouldn't try to make their own? Or worse, make other weapons like bombs?

Already happening.

 

[Spicedaddy]

Unless you have a gun with stopping power, 2 rounds isn't going to stop someone immediately unless they're well placed. In times of panic you can easily get off a few shots quickly. So if there's a group of 4 trying to gangrape you and you shoot 2 of them with your 8 shots, what are the other 2 going to do? Run away when you run out of bullets? Or beat the living shit out of you?



They're semi auto rifles. I agree if you don't want someone going full auto with a cheap AK-47 import, but you know people going into rampages typically go in with handguns. With the Sandy Hook guy I don't even see how much of an advantage he gained by using his .223 rifle. Shooting at a distance he would've had an advantage over his handguns, but at CQB, the handguns would've been more deadly

One shot in the air and point the gun at them? A gun should be a deterrent first, and a weapon second.

He probably used the rifle because it held more bullets, and he could aim better. I'm not a gun expert, but surely you can aim better from 20-30 feet with a rifle than with a handgun. Anyways, the point with that type of rifle is they're not used for hunting, and they're not used for carrying around or hiding under your pillow. So why have them at all?

 

[Blackjack200]

that is exactly my point.. they will find a way or something to use as as weapon with or without gun bans.

Which is why all this is dumber than a box of rocks.

So why do we care if gun owners secure their weapons?

That is where I support more control.
Rifles need the same checks done as handguns.
and owners should be held responsible for properly controlling and storing their weapons.

If those weapons from the shooting had been properly stored and secured in a gun safe the combo would have died with the mother.
And junior would have had to find his weapons elsewhere.

All weapons should be stored in combination gun safes with keyed trigger guards installed at all times unless at the range or hunting.

if every gun owner did this as well as more controls on the sales of rifles. It would be a huge step in the right direction.

Do you really think that people who couldn't get guns wouldn't try to make their own? Or worse, make other weapons like bombs?

Already happening.

I think some would. I also think it's a lot harder to do and a lot easier to stop.

 

[CVSiN]

Wild ideas:

-Limit handguns to 6 or 8 shots per magazine. (You don't live in a Hollywood movie, once someone's been shot once or twice, they usually back off, or die. If there's a few bad guys, the others will run away after the first 2 or 3 guys are shot. And if you can't hit someone with 6 or 8 shots, then you suck at aiming and a gun does nothing for you.)

-Ban the semi-auto rifles (AR-15, etc., basically anything that's not used for hunting) They're made for the army, not 20 year-old nerds who want to replicate their Call Of Duty career...



LOL, sorry but you're not overtaking the US military no matter how many guns you have. That excuse for owning guns is completely retarded.

Anyways, just my Canadian opinion. We buy guns for hunting mostly, not to wack off to or shoot at trees.

and what do you think we are buying guns for?
Hunting, Sport, and Self/Home Defense and Collectors.

That isn't the "reason" we own guns not at all. What I said was there is no freaking way in hell the average US Gun Owner is going to stand by to have the government come try to forcefully take their property away.

You forget that most likely a large portion of the US Military are also die hard gun rights supporters and prolly would not follow that "unconstitutional" order anyway.

You cannot take rights that were given at the very beginning of this Country by the constitution.
You might as well repeal the freedom of speech amendment while you are stripping liberties.

You out of country people have no idea how serious our culture believes in our RIGHTS to bear arms.

 

[sixone]

You cannot take rights that were given at the very beginning of this Country by the constitution.

Please be careful. The Constitution doesn't give rights - it only specifies the rights we have with or without the Constitution.

 

[Blackjack200]

One shot in the air and point the gun at them? A gun should be a deterrent first, and a weapon second.

That doesn't make any sense, but the scenario is idiodic anyway. Please show me one story of a woman ever defending herself from four would-be rapists by pumping them all full of lead from her high capacity handgun.

If someone's going to rape you they're probably going to stalk you and then attack you when you don't expect it. They're not going to stand shoulder to shoulder with their three co-rapists and shout out "We intend to rape you!" from a distance of 30-40 yards before beginning an orderly advance.

He probably used the rifle because it held more bullets, and he could aim better. I'm not a gun expert, but surely you can aim better from 20-30 feet with a rifle than with a handgun. Anyways, the point with that type of rifle is they're not used for hunting, and they're not used for carrying around or hiding under your pillow. So why have them at all?

Hitting a human sized target at 20-30 feet with a handgun is trivial, even for an inexperienced shooter. I believe he used the AR because it has much more muzzle energy, i.e. even though the caliber is smaller .223 bullets are travelling much faster than a handgun bullet and they yaw (tumble) when they enter into a person. It's a horrible way to die.

 

[CVSiN]

So why do we care if gun owners secure their weapons?





I think some would. I also think it's a lot harder to do and a lot easier to stop.

are you that stupid? that is common sense for most gun owners.
Locking up your weapons and restricting access is responsible gun ownership period.
it keeps kids away from the weapons unless supervised.
and keeps thieves from getting your weapons and committing crimes.
and just restrict access from anyone that doesn't need to have access.

And if more people actually did it as they should stolen guns from house/car breakins would drop drastically.
not to mention accidental child shootings in the home.
It comes down to common sense, safety, and security.

 

[CVSiN]

Please be careful. The Constitution doesn't give rights - it only specifies the rights we have with or without the Constitution.

No shit really? thanks Sherlock..

 

[Olikan]

that is exactly my point.. they will find a way or something to use as as weapon with or without gun bans.

Which is why all this is dumber than a box of rocks.

exacly what?

try to kill 20+ people with a knife... most of them would ran away.....you know....that is something that you can't really do against a gun

bombs? yes Macgyver :awe:

so, what's the deal about guns love?
really...looks like make you more manly :whiste:
when is exacly the oposite

 

[sourceninja]

Unless you have a gun with stopping power, 2 rounds isn't going to stop someone immediately unless they're well placed. In times of panic you can easily get off a few shots quickly. So if there's a group of 4 trying to gangrape you and you shoot 2 of them with your 8 shots, what are the other 2 going to do? Run away when you run out of bullets? Or beat the living shit out of you?



They're semi auto rifles. I agree if you don't want someone going full auto with a cheap AK-47 import, but you know people going into rampages typically go in with handguns. With the Sandy Hook guy I don't even see how much of an advantage he gained by using his .223 rifle. Shooting at a distance he would've had an advantage over his handguns, but at CQB, the handguns would've been more deadly



The whole government tyranny argument is ridiculous. If the US descends into a complete anarchy, I'm not going to spend my time living in a war torn region like Iraq. I'd move the hell out. But you know there are those who have that as their fantasy. It's like the zombie apocalypse fanatics and the y2k fanatics. Sounds cool, but not realistic AT ALL.

Exactly, that's why everybody in Syria and Libya just moved right out of the country when they didn't like their oppressive government. It was easy and other nations were thankful and grateful to have them....

A revolt against the US government would be no different than the Arab spring. The government is not going to use nukes and chemical weapons or even drone strikes on their own cities. It would turn the populous against them and turn other nations against them. So if our government ever became so corrupt that people actually decided to stand up against them, it would be helpful to have small arms on the same playing field as the troops you would be fighting.

This of course is the sole and only purpose of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Blackjack200]

You cannot take rights that were given at the very beginning of this Country by the constitution.

Right, a docment drafted when towns were still getting burned down by Indians.

I'm starting to put the Constitution literalists in the same camp as the biblical literalists. Pretty similar ways of thinking it seems. Appeal to authority, rejection of any reasoned criticism or argument. The President was actually wise to lump gun nuts and god nuts together a few years ago.

 

[Blackjack200]

are you that stupid? that is common sense for most gun owners.
Locking up your weapons and restricting access is responsible gun ownership period.
it keeps kids away from the weapons unless supervised.
and keeps thieves from getting your weapons and committing crimes.
and just restrict access from anyone that doesn't need to have access.

And if more people actually did it as they should stolen guns from house/car breakins would drop drastically.
not to mention accidental child shootings in the home.
It comes down to common sense, safety, and security.

Yes, but we already know (because you told us) that it doesn't matter if crazy people get the guns, because without them they would just find another way to kill the same number of people. Are you really having this much a problem figuring out the internal inconsistency of your argument, are you just pulling my leg?

 

[Blackjack200]

Exactly, that's why everybody in Syria and Libya just moved right out of the country when they didn't like their oppressive government. It was easy and other nations were thankful and grateful to have them....

A revolt against the US government would be no different than the Arab spring. The government is not going to use nukes and chemical weapons or even drone strikes on their own cities. It would turn the populous against them and turn other nations against them. So if our government ever became so corrupt that people actually decided to stand up against them, it would be helpful to have small arms on the same playing field as the troops you would be fighting.

This of course is the sole and only purpose of the 2nd amendment.

I'd prefer people just use the voting booth if they want to change governments.

 

[CVSiN]

exacly what?

try to kill 20+ people with a knife... most of them would ran away.....you know....that is something that you can't really do against a gun

bombs? yes Macgyver :awe:

so, what's the deal about guns love?
really...looks like make you more manly :whiste:
when is exacly the oposite

actually you can run away from a gun.. most shooters are not exactly great shots.
there have been exceptions ( Marine Sniper gone bad at the UT Tower)
But nearly all of these massacres the shooters were not accurate.

So yes stay low and run and use cover and you might have a chance..

As for other ways to kill people.. there are many many ways to kill a person.
easily.. the human body is actually very fragile.

And there have been cases of KNIFE rampages around the world.
People literally just freeze like a deer in headlights.

and don't forget the airliners on 9/11 were taken with simple boxcutters...
not guns.

guess you people forgot Japan's version of this..
and it was done with a Knife..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

proof you will never stop crazies.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'd prefer people just use the voting booth if they want to change governments.

I'd prefer people just use the voting booth if they want to do away with gun ownership.

 

[CVSiN]

Yes, but we already know (because you told us) that it doesn't matter if crazy people get the guns, because without them they would just find another way to kill the same number of people. Are you really having this much a problem figuring out the internal inconsistency of your argument, are you just pulling my leg?

I've already said before that Criminals and mentally ill people are the ones that need to be controlled better.
You remove those and weapon control becomes a non issue.

 

[BladeVenom]

exacly what?

try to kill 20+ people with a knife... most of them would ran away.....you know....that is something that you can't really do against a gun

Small children locked in a classroom, a knife could have killed just as many.

bombs? yes Macgyver :awe:

Illiterate peasants living in caves in the middle east don't seem to have any trouble making bombs. Macgyver not needed.

so, what's the deal about guns love?

They are fashionable in our culture. If swords were the weapon of choice on TV, he might have used a sword.

 

[Olikan]

guess you people forgot Japan's version of this..
and it was done with a Knife..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

proof you will never stop crazies.

never said, that it would stop crazy people, but reduce the number of death

from you link:
8 deaths... okay sucks, but not exacly more than 20