[panicos81]

Originally Posted by Nate4641

Yes cars were made for driving, and then people found a way to create recreation out of them with racing and created a new class of the original product. The same thing has happened with firearms. They were created to kill and someone has found a way to make recreation out of them with non violent competitions that isn't the original intention.

When was the last time a competitive shooter committed murder?

Alcohol kills more people every day than bullets, but it is still legal.

look i`m not saying that everyone who buys a gun is for commiting a murder.
The problem i believe lies in the peoples mentality as well as society/tv/family/school etc.
for example, in Cyprus were i live, we all have guns and bullets provided to us by the army and shotguns for hunting which anyone can buy with the proper license. So my 14 year old nephew can go into my bedroom and take a semi automatic gun and bullets (i have them hidden but for the sake of the argument) and go shooting people, but, there was never an incident like this one.
As far as competitive shooters maybe there should be guns were you go shoot so you dont have to carry your own gun or maybe you could have a locker and keep the gun there?

I dont know, as i said, i think the problem lies deeper, and its not solvable in the short term.

[SAM135iAM]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

I bet pepper spray would have made a serious difference in this situation, this nut job was not a hardened veteran

I agree. Kimber makes a hard core pepper spray that is affective at 90 yards. I just picked it up for my lady.

Any sort of self defense would go a long way if a teacher was able carry it on school premises.

[carve]

The ironic thing about cars is that they take more lives than any other device, but people think that's an acceptable cost for a convenience item. Arms protect freedom (something too many people take for granted these days due to a short sighted view of history). That's a bit more important.

[SAM135iAM]

I think we should also take into consideration the different states that we live in here. Some peoples views and opinions are conflicting and I believe this to be based on the members differences in demographic. Each state and/or county has there own gun control laws already in effect and they are not all the same as others. I'm suggesting that a member from one state will most likely have a different opinion on gun control given the laws that are already in affect for him/her than another member. The point of this thread is to discuss how terrible this occurrence is and to discuss what information we know about the people directly involved. Would someone like to get back on topic? Would someone please start a gun control topic in your regional forum?

[johanness]

Comparing cars to assault rifles? This thread just went full-retard.

[ScarecrowBoat]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

Maybe we should ban cars that go over 65 mph no one needs a car that goes faster than that, and it would really cut down on traffic deaths. Maybe we should also make cigarettes illegal they kill over 400,000 people a year, and why not try banning fast food restaurants as well, diabetes and obesity are on the rise in this country. In fact why is alcohol legal when thousands die in DUI related accidents, we should make alcohol illegal as well...

Some people can't make safe, responsible choices, so let's take the choices away all together.

Comparing a device designed to kill to a car isn't even reasonable. You could make that argument with a tank, perhaps. Why? Because cars are a mode of transportation with inherent risks that the occupants and people using the vehicle are aware of when they enter the roadway. Guns were designed for one purpose, to kill. Whether that is a squirrel, a robber, or an insurgent - that is their intent.

Also, smoking HAS been banned when related to infringing on other peoples' liberties. You can't smoke next to me in almost any place of business because it affects MY HEALTH, but you are free to do so in your own home or car because you are 1) Aware of the risks 2) Hurting yourself and only yourself, generally speaking.

Why can we not apply the same logic to guns? Your right to own a gun DOES infringe on my right to be safe and I will tell you why. Too many pro-gun people live under the false narrative of this logic: Criminals have guns, therefore I need a gun to protect myself against armed criminals otherwise they have an unfair advantage and I will be left helpless. The problem with this logic is that it is backwards. Criminals would largely not have guns if it weren't for "law abiding citizens" owning them in the first place. The vast majority of guns used in crimes that people are so concerned about protecting themselves from were stolen from those very people.

Originally Posted by carve

The ironic thing about cars is that they take more lives than any other device, but people think that's an acceptable cost for a convenience item. Arms protect freedom (something too many people take for granted these days due to a short sighted view of history). That's a bit more important.

This is idiotic at best. What are you scared Obama is going to come force you to become a muslim? If the "Government" decides to "take us over" to some degree in which we would need to fight back, there is a) hardly a chance we would even be aware of it and b) good luck shooting down an F-22 with your Glock. Having guns to prevent tyranny is one of the most insane and paranoid reasons for gun ownership imaginable. How is that going for the Syrians right now?

[UncleWede]

I'll tell you my opinion on why these young kids were killed. I imagine the following conversation occurred at home at least a zillion times

Son: Mom, why can't you pay more attention to me?
Mom: But, I have to do something for the kids at school.

[kevinbahnz]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

I'll tell you my opinion on why these young kids were killed. I imagine the following conversation occurred at home at least a zillion times

Son: Mom, why can't you pay more attention to me?
Mom: But, I have to do something for the kids at school.

that came to mind when they first reported that she was a teacher at the school, then a day after the incident the tried to distance her from the school saying that the initial reports were all wrong and that she was not a teacher at the school.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

Criminals would largely not have guns if it weren't for "law abiding citizens" owning them in the first place. The vast majority of guns used in crimes that people are so concerned about protecting themselves from were stolen from those very people.

First of all it's to late to change that, at this point there are around two hundred and twenty million guns in the USA, and the vast majority will not give up their arms, so this point is pretty much moot to me anyway. Additionally, there is a trend that the anti-gun crowd continues to ignore, illegal items will always be available to criminals.

Are you guys really so dense to believe that criminal organizations can smuggle thousands of tons of heroine into this country, or millions of Extacy tablets ( a drug that requires professional manufacturing techniques and a chemist) and yet not have the ability to smuggle firearms into the USA- in mass quantities? If you believe that they won't be able to supplement the current two hundred and twenty million gun surplus then you must be crazy, even if a gun ban were to occur these criminal organizations, like the mexican drug cartels, would be smuggling new guns onto our streets daily, and given that there's already a two hundred and twenty million gun surplus, how could any of you really believe that criminals wouldn't have access to guns? That thought is truly absurd in todays world.

The fact is simple, if some dude breaks into my house to rape my family member, I don't give a shit if he has a gun or not, he's gonna catch a bullet, look at cases like the twelve year old girl below, why should we relinquish our rights, because certain people are sick in this world? If banning guns would eliminate murder that would be one thing, but we all know that it would not! I guess you prefer that the thousands of people, like the girl in the video below who are saved by guns every year relinquish there rights to that protection.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

Nobody needs a rifle like that for defense or to enjoy the hobby. Is having a ban on rifles like an AR-15 really too much of a sacrifice? One less gun in a gun lovers arsenal?

I know you say don't ask me to define an Assault Weapon, but to ban something it must be defined.

BTW there is a definition of Assault Weapon, and the AR-15 is not one.

If you suggest a ban on auto loading magazine fed carbines, then you have just banned the Ruger 10/22 the most common rifle in the country.

Is it the pistol grip that makes the AR more dangerous then a Mini-14?

I live in CA, my AR is limited to a 10 round mag, I have a bullet button installed (meaning I need a tool to drop the magazine). I have no problem with this. I don't need high capacity mags, I think they are fun and I don't think banning them will do anything, but for recreational purposes they are not necessary.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

I actually don't disagree with you. I do believe in the right to own a firearm. I just believe it is time for a compromise. We don't need assault rifles in civilian hands. I can still participate and score a 238/240 during my marksman qualification at Edson Range without an AR. Nobody needs a rifle like that for defense or to enjoy the hobby. Is having a ban on rifles like an AR-15 really too much of a sacrifice? One less gun in a gun lovers arsenal?

We will always have shootings, it is in our nature, we are violent. But you can simple cause greater carnage with a rifle that features a high capacity mag, etc... It's not gonna solve everything, but it might be a start.

Right now I can go and purchase an semi automatic with a fore-grip for better hip-fire, a flashlight to blind my enemy, a reflex sight, high capacity mag, etc... It's all designed to clear out a room - quickly; I've done that. You can kill people with a bolt action rifle as well, or a shotgun, a handgun... but not as efficient and fast as a semi automatic long rifle. That is just reality. And yes, you can build a bomb, set things on fire, etc... but we can't control that.

And please don't ask me for a definition of an assault rifle, we all know what I mean, and we all know that I know my guns.

I understand that I don't have the same "romantic" attachment to guns as many Americans. Many grew up with guns, have great memories with their dads at the range, etc... and there is nothing wrong with that. Most gun owners are law abiding citizens, and are horrified as well. And again, I simply hope that we can have a civil discussion about it. We have to come to some compromise, don't we? I got introduced to guns when I joined the military. To me an assault rifle is a deadly tool, nothing more. At the end of my service I handed it in, and that was it.

In life we all have to make some sacrifices at some point, nobody likes to do that, but we have to. I believe this horrific events is a game changer, for the NRA, the gun industry (which is basically the NRA as well), and for us.

I love this country, my wife is american, my daughter is american, and I truly believe it is one of the greatest countries on earth. But I think we can always improve and evolve.

Well I get where you are coming from, but to me that's like if the someone said I had to give up my BMW for a Toyota hybrid, because I didn't need the speed etc. I would be upset either way. And I actually don't think that it's fair to say that no one needs an ar15, why not have the best home defense.

Check out this guy, if those guys were trying to break into my house I would want my AR not my pistol!

[kingofthedemo]

Here's another great video!

[ScarecrowBoat]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

First of all it's to late to change that, at this point there are around two hundred and twenty million guns in the USA, and the vast majority will not give up their arms, so this point is pretty much moot to me anyway. Additionally, there is a trend that the anti-gun crowd continues to ignore, illegal items will always be available to criminals.

Are you guys really so dense to believe that criminal organizations can smuggle thousands of tons of heroine into this country, or millions of Extacy tablets ( a drug that requires professional manufacturing techniques and a chemist) and yet not have the ability to smuggle firearms into the USA- in mass quantities? If you believe that they won't be able to supplement the current two hundred and twenty million gun surplus then you must be crazy, even if a gun ban were to occur these criminal organizations, like the mexican drug cartels, would be smuggling new guns onto our streets daily, and given that there's already a two hundred and twenty million gun surplus, how could any of you really believe that criminals wouldn't have access to guns? That thought is truly absurd in todays world.

The fact is simple, if some dude breaks into my house to rape my family member, I don't give a shit if he has a gun or not, he's gonna catch a bullet, look at cases like the twelve year old girl below, why should we relinquish our rights, because certain people are sick in this world? If banning guns would eliminate murder that would be one thing, but we all know that it would not! I guess you prefer that the thousands of people, like the girl in the video below who are saved by guns every year relinquish there rights to that protection.

Just because you are a criminal or intent on criminal acts doesn't make you all of the sudden open and available to this massive black market of narcotics and weapons. There isn't some Craigslist you can go to to find these things.

I must ask you, how often does "some dude break into your house to rape a family member"? If it is so frequent that you honestly need to arm yourself, I suggest moving to a better neighborhood. How paranoid can you be. You do realize that your family members are vastly MORE LIKELY to die or be injured because of your gun than due to some fairy-tale assailant, right? And you call me unreasonable...

[Nate4641]

High capacity magazines are not as big of an issue. The VA Tech shooter had a backpack full of magazines.

Caliber is another issue that people do not understand. More people are shot with .22LR every year than anything else. You can buy a brick of hundreds of rounds of .22LR for as much as 50 rounds of 9mm.

This is an issue that will never be resolved in this country because Americans are too stubborn to open their minds to another way of thinking. At least we're past the elections now and dont have to listen to that, but its the same concept. Everyone has their opinion and stick to it and use the facts that benefit their side. It's hopeless to argue about unless if you just like arguing.

[Nate4641]

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

How paranoid can you be?

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...sday-preppers/

[carve]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

And please don't ask me for a definition of an assault rifle, we all know what I mean, and we all know that I know my guns.

You want something banned, but you don't know what it is? It's the least powerful centerfire rifle commonly available.

. To me an assault rifle is a deadly tool, nothing more.

The 2nd amendment exists so the citizens can have such deadly tools, and they had very good reasons for putting it there. It has nothing to do with romance or sport.

[kevinbahnz]

Right now(holidays) home invasions and armed robberies are on the rise .

[schoy]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

Not exactly, a car that's capable of doing over 65 mph isn't just for getting from point A to point B, and a car that's capable of doing over 150 mph is certainly not just a tool for transportation, if you use that car on the open road and speed, you are directly a contributing high risk factor to the 40,000 car crash fatality victims per year in the USA.

So to reduce the 40,000 traffic fatalities each year would it really be absurd to mandate that all cars are electronically governed to reach a maximum speed of 65 mph? This would surely drastically reduce the number of traffic fatalities and increase public safety.

Nice try, but the analogy fails because the difference is one of intent. People drive faster than 65 mph because they want to get to point A to point B faster, not because they want to kill someone. The fact that traffic fatalities happen at higher speeds is an unintentional consequence. Hence, most, if not all, high-speed traffic fatalities are due to recklessness and gross negligence, not intent or willfulness (and the law makes a distinction).

While many gun-related deaths are due to accident, a not insignificant portion are the result of an intent to kill ... because that's what guns were designed for.

Plus, your statistic of 40,000 traffic fatalities is misleading. Compare (the number of traffic fatalities / hours spent driving) vs. (the number of civilian gun-related deaths / civilian hours spent firing guns), then get back to us with a meaningful statistic.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

Just because you are a criminal or intent on criminal acts doesn't make you all of the sudden open and available to this massive black market of narcotics and weapons. There isn't some Craigslist you can go to to find these things.

It would be as easy as scoring some weed or coke, people don't have to look to far, a lot of the time the black market for drugs is closely tied with the black market for guns, so I don't see how anyone would have problems finding guns based on the current easy access we have to drugs in this country, just ask a drug dealer, and he will point you in the right direction.

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

I must ask you, how often does "some dude break into your house to rape a family member"? If it is so frequent that you honestly need to arm yourself, I suggest moving to a better neighborhood. How paranoid can you be. You do realize that your family members are vastly MORE LIKELY to die or be injured because of your gun than due to some fairy-tale assailant, right? And you call me unreasonable...

Well my mom was attacked in front of me when I was about four years old, thankfully an armed bystander saved her life. I have personally had to pull my pistol before on three attackers when traveling. And I know multiple friends who have had similar experiences in their lives. No one would be harmed by an accidental discharge in my house hold because I practice gun safety.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by schoy

Nice try, but the analogy fails because the difference is one of intent. People drive faster than 65 mph because they want to get to point A to point B faster, not because they want to kill someone. The fact that traffic fatalities happen at higher speeds is an unintentional consequence. Hence, most, if not all, high-speed traffic fatalities are due to recklessness and gross negligence, not intent or willfulness (and the law makes a distinction).

While many gun-related deaths are due to accident, a not insignificant portion are the result of an intent to kill ... because that's what guns were designed for.

Plus, your statistic of 40,000 traffic fatalities is misleading. Compare (the number of traffic fatalities / hours spent driving) vs. (the number of civilian gun-related deaths / civilian hours spent firing guns), then get back to us with a meaningful statistic.

Really? Do you think that those 40,000 dead people give a shit about the intent of the the individual that caused their death? Either way 40,000 people die a year from traffic related accidents, and a lot of them are caused by wreck less driving and speeding!

[Mr Tonka]

Guns are designed to kill.
Cars are designed for conveyance.

Gun related fatalities are roughly 10,000 per year
Car related fatalities are roughly 40,000 per year

40,000 dead people are acceptable because the car wasn't designed for killing.
10,000 dead people is unacceptable because the gun was designed for killing.

So an item NOT designed to kill actually kills many more than the item that is designed for killing.

If dead civilians, who didn't expect to be dead are what we're talking about, i fail to see how the two items are not a fair comparison.

So, obviously there is a psychological reason that people don't call for banning cars when their loved one dying in a car accident. i guess it has a lot to do with the word accident. Because an accident implies no intent. It's funny how the word "accident" has taken the place of the word collision when describing a car crash. I think this was introduced early on to make people OK with car related deaths.... "it was an accident". When the fact of the matter is, if someone runs into your car they were either: following too closely to physically stop in time, not paying attention to traffic control devices, driving while impaired, driving while too drowsy, or being reckless by driving too fast for conditions, racing, showing off, etc... These are all choices we as drivers make every time we get into the car. These choices cause collisions, not accidents.

At any rate, take that accident where you wife just died and replace the driver of the car who hit her with someone who was driving drunk. It seems that when this happens, the outrage is quite apparent. Most of the time much hate brews within the spouse, children, parents of the departed even though this drunk driver had no intent to kill. We as a society chastise the drivers who are drunk when causing an accident, but when someone causes the same accident simply by being careless; much of society actually feels sorry for the driver at fault. In these cases, society looks at the incident and thinks; this is horrible, so sad, what can we do to prevent this from happening again? Well, we can't ban people, we can't ban cars, we don't want to revamp drivers education, so about the only thing we can do is ban drinking and driving.

Now we have someone who walks into a business, mall or school with a gun and kills 2, 4, 8, 26 people. Make no mistake, the gunman had intent to kill. He is the bad guy, hated by all, but even more hated than him was his tool of choice. Sure, the gun was designed to kill, but it had no intent to do so. In these cases, society looks at the incident and thinks; this is horrible, so sad, what can we do to prevent this from happening again? Well, we can't ban people, we can't ban mental illness, we can't ban mental instability, so about the only thing we can do is ban guns.

I'm sorry, but if my wife dies in a car crash, a mugging, a bike accident or a mass shooting, the result is the same, she's dead and had no intentions to be. Anything that causes an unplanned death is the same in my book because the result is the same, and unplanned death.

Many people think that this argument is comparing cars and guns. It's not, it's comparing causes of death. In these situations, death is the topic. First reports are always about how many dead, not how many survived. Someone brought up the Chinaman who went on a slashing spree with a knife. Few shits are given because no one died. Huge, terrible car collisions take place all the time, everyone gets away with minor injuries, so it's all cool. But all these things change when they cause death to innocent people.

When the worst school killing in US history was committed in 1927 where 38 people died no one called for a ban of cars or explosives. Same holds true for 9-11, no one banned air travel after 4 planes were hijacked in the same day causing the unplanned death of thousands of people. Why, because we can't ban people, we can't ban planes, etc.... In mass killings not involving firearms, there is no one "thing" involved that a large part of citizens can do with out; make the killing tool a firearm and most people have witch to hunt.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by schoy

Nice try, but the analogy fails because the difference is one of intent. People drive faster than 65 mph because they want to get to point A to point B faster, not because they want to kill someone. The fact that traffic fatalities happen at higher speeds is an unintentional consequence. Hence, most, if not all, high-speed traffic fatalities are due to recklessness and gross negligence, not intent or willfulness (and the law makes a distinction).

While many gun-related deaths are due to accident, a not insignificant portion are the result of an intent to kill ... because that's what guns were designed for.

Plus, your statistic of 40,000 traffic fatalities is misleading. Compare (the number of traffic fatalities / hours spent driving) vs. (the number of civilian gun-related deaths / civilian hours spent firing guns), then get back to us with a meaningful statistic.

You may be surprised by that statistic. Hundreds of millions of rounds are fired each year shooting targets. A minuscule amount of those rounds are fired with intent to kill.

According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles

Roughly the same amount of passenger cars legally on the roads in the US as their are legally purchased guns.