This is a good reason why no one takes you seriously. Mongrel.-Sh1fty- wrote:
The amount of stupidity in this thread arguing for gun control is ridiculous.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
Do you not see something fundamentally wrong when the head of a powerful organisation that revolves solely around weaponry delivers a suggestion based on a total lack of common sense? His basic solution to every problem is to shoot it and hope for the best. Do you really want to live in a country where the problem of firearms becomes so great that you will see heavily armed police everywhere? Because that is what will happen if this shit continues.-Sh1fty- wrote:
The amount of stupidity in this thread arguing for gun control is ridiculous.
Preventing piss-easy access to weapons designed specifically for battlefield situations, not home defence, is just common sense.
For the record, I didnt get my AR for home protection, I got it because it looks cool and is fun to shoot. I have a 12 gauge for home protection and a S&W .40 Sigma for a backup if that fails.aynrandroolz wrote:
jesus... what is it with the pro-gun lobby piling layer upon layer of crazy stereotype and nightmare-fantasy on their 'home invasion' scenarios? first of all, we're told that a "large number" of home invasions are for the purpose of "expressly hurting, raping, or murdering a family member". now we're told that invaders are "USUALLY" hopped up on drugs? lol what the fuck? are they zombies, too? sure you don't want uranium rounds for that AR-15? a silver-tipped bullet, just so they stay down? garlic rubbed on your bedroom door-knob?Canin wrote:
My response was to you, not Sh1fty.Dilbert_X wrote:
If Sh1fty thinks he needs an AR15 and a 30rnd magazine for home defence he's more delusional than I thought.
Honestly, would it be a good thing to be loosing off dozens of rounds in a residential area?
Why would you fire 30 rounds? Just because you have them? There have been cases, even recently, where 4 rounds or more did not stop a single assailant. I bet those people defending themselves and thier loved ones would have liked to have more than thier 6 round revolver at that point. Assailants that do home invasions are usually hopped up on drugs and dont respond to bullet wounds like a normal person would.
and what sort of drugs do you think people take that make their internal organs immune to massive trauma or puncture wounds? here's a little medical tip, straight from a hopped-up drug user: none. people on speed and various forms of tranq may not feel pain, but a bullet to a vital is going to put them down, hard, whether or not they are consciously aware of the fact that their nerve-endings are screaming for mercy. if you kneecap an assailant, he won't be able to walk, regardless of whether he is on drugs or drunk, because he has no fucking kneecaps.
honestly, it would be so much easier to swallow some of the semi-rational points that (some of the more eloquent) pro-gun lobbyists put forward, if it wasn't always couched in this paranoiac, easily parodied far-right nutjob stance. i'm willing to go with you on the "to prevent against the tyranny of our government" line - it seems very alien and very whiffy to a louche-liberal european, but i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, in the better interests of my liberal historical/cultural relativism - but when you start saying all this crap about hordes of jumped-up drug-users, like nazi zombies on hitler's amphets crawling back out of hell's trenches themselves, then i know you're talking more out of fear and dumb ignorance than you are talking of anything rationally. a south carolinian meth-head will drop if you shoot to incapacitate them. the meth isn't an invulnerability potion. you don't need a tommy gun with a drum mag, and seven molotov cocktails.
all-in-all this is why people frequently lump in the pro-gun lobby or the NRA with far-right nutjobism, and relegate it to a form of extremism or, even, domestic terrorism. it's because pro-gun lobbyists seem completely indoctrinated with this 'heightened state of fear' all the time, which is textbook neo-con homeland policy. the reds aren't under your bed, vagabond drug zombies aren't wandering the night, black men aren't coming to rape your wives... etc. put the .50 cal down.
My point about the more rounds thing was this, you dont fire more rounds just because you have them or can, but if you need more, at least you have it.
Personally, I think there are more than enough unenforced gun laws on the books with out adding more unenforced gun laws to them.
Some of the people who argue for gun control may, in fact be stupid. But arguing for it, is not.-Sh1fty- wrote:
The amount of stupidity in this thread arguing for gun control is ridiculous.
There are already heavily armed police everywhere. SWAT and tacticals have fully auto or fire select weapons. Private citizens can only get semi-auto weapons legally. I seriously doubt that any military person is going to willingly take a semi-auto fire arm, even one that looks like it is designed for a battlefield, into one.M.O.A.B wrote:
Do you not see something fundamentally wrong when the head of a powerful organisation that revolves solely around weaponry delivers a suggestion based on a total lack of common sense? His basic solution to every problem is to shoot it and hope for the best. Do you really want to live in a country where the problem of firearms becomes so great that you will see heavily armed police everywhere? Because that is what will happen if this shit continues.-Sh1fty- wrote:
The amount of stupidity in this thread arguing for gun control is ridiculous.
Preventing piss-easy access to weapons designed specifically for battlefield situations, not home defence, is just common sense.
I noticed you didn't answer his question....
I figure that this is the problem America has with guns. The idea that they are a solution to so many problems.M.O.A.B wrote:
His basic solution to every problem is to shoot it and hope for the best.
i couldn't find reliable information on home invasion statistics in the us with a quick google search
but i highly doubt that this kind of crime is being committed significantly more often in the us than in other countries
but i highly doubt that this kind of crime is being committed significantly more often in the us than in other countries
There are two hundred and seventy million firearms in the U.S. that are owned by civilians. There are three hundred million civilions. That's an unfathomably huge number of weapons in circulation and we've had 27 "mass" shootings in the past 14 years.M.O.A.B wrote:
Do you not see something fundamentally wrong when the head of a powerful organisation that revolves solely around weaponry delivers a suggestion based on a total lack of common sense? His basic solution to every problem is to shoot it and hope for the best. Do you really want to live in a country where the problem of firearms becomes so great that you will see heavily armed police everywhere? Because that is what will happen if this shit continues.-Sh1fty- wrote:
The amount of stupidity in this thread arguing for gun control is ridiculous.
Preventing piss-easy access to weapons designed specifically for battlefield situations, not home defence, is just common sense.
Do you not see how gun control wouldn't prevent this, and that it's bullshit? It's not about "Why do you need an assault rifle?"
There are 270,000,000 firearms owned by civilians in the U.S. There have been 27 mass shootings. That's ONE lunatic for every ONE HUNDRED MILLION weapons. Asking for stricter gun control is just not grasping the reality of things. Everybody calling me stupid can suck a dick, the statistics speak for themselves. You can't make 270,000,000 weapons disappear; you can't regulate them; you can't make a dent in the homicides with weapons by restricting law abiding citizens from getting fully automatic AR-15s with all the fancy shit they want to make themselves cool. THOSE people don't go on killing sprees, those people like fucking badass guns. The guys who've done these shootings, for the most part, used handguns.
Start grasping reality people, your pathetic gun laws only limit law-abiding citizens.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
No stats exist because it isn't a legal term. If a home invasion happens the police file it under what happened during the break in. So you get a burglary, breaking and entering, assault, rape, murder etc. rather than a home invasion label.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
i couldn't find reliable information on home invasion statistics in the us with a quick google search
There are people walking the Earth right now who unknown to them will be killed in a mass shooting that will inevitably happen within the next 6 months to a year. It could be you for all we know. Just people who have an average life like you and I who have a clock ticking over their heads until their violent murder by a deranged person who either shouldn't have guns or shouldn't have the guns he has. I find that interesting. Just some food for thought.
it's only a home invasion when the residents are at homeMacbeth wrote:
No stats exist because it isn't a legal term. If a home invasion happens the police file it under what happened during the break in. So you get a burglary, breaking and entering, assault, rape, murder etc. rather than a home invasion label.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
i couldn't find reliable information on home invasion statistics in the us with a quick google search
"Home invasion is the act of illegally entering a private and occupied dwelling with violent intent for the purpose of committing a crime against the occupants such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping".
Yes. Okay?
he just wanted someone to explain his knowledge of home invasions toMacbeth wrote:
Yes. Okay?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
RWF: Home Invasion.
so burglary doesn't count as home invasion
Yeah, lots of people are walking around being all average and not knowing they're going to die in a car accident, get cancer, be murdered, get hit by a car, get struck by lightning, have an accident where they work, contract a disease, get an infection in a hospital, or otherwise expire. Every time you go out the door you take a risk. Hell, you don't even have look out a window to see something that can kill you. Your chair can kill you six ways from Sunday. I find that interesting.Macbeth wrote:
There are people walking the Earth right now who unknown to them will be killed in a mass shooting that will inevitably happen within the next 6 months to a year. It could be you for all we know. Just people who have an average life like you and I who have a clock ticking over their heads until their violent murder by a deranged person who either shouldn't have guns or shouldn't have the guns he has. I find that interesting. Just some food for thought.
Stop worrying and live your life.
Just some food for thought.
cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
so burglary doesn't count as home invasion
looks like taken from danger 5Macbeth wrote:
cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
so burglary doesn't count as home invasion
roger ebert has been telling me that people are getting shot on gun appreciation day
I didnt even know we had a gun appreciation day
is this true gun fans?
I didnt even know we had a gun appreciation day
is this true gun fans?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Mutantbear wrote:
roger ebert has been telling me that people are getting shot on gun appreciation day
I didnt even know we had a gun appreciation day
is this true gun fans?
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Check out www.assaultweapon.info
A handgun is semi-automatic, for the most part, you pull the trigger and even if you hold it only one bullet comes out. An assault rifle is the same thing. You pull the trigger of an AR-15 and one bullet comes out. The difference? One gun shoots farther. You can get really high cap mags for handguns too. Why should we limit assault rifles just because they can shoot further?
Also, the Second Amendment. Think it was written so hunters could keep their Remington 700?
Jaekus wrote:
I'm still yet to see a valid argument as to why assault rifles need to be available to the general population.
Assault rifles are not available to the general public.
Baba Booey
I would.Canin wrote:
There are already heavily armed police everywhere. SWAT and tacticals have fully auto or fire select weapons. Private citizens can only get semi-auto weapons legally. I seriously doubt that any military person is going to willingly take a semi-auto fire arm, even one that looks like it is designed for a battlefield, into one.M.O.A.B wrote:
Do you not see something fundamentally wrong when the head of a powerful organisation that revolves solely around weaponry delivers a suggestion based on a total lack of common sense? His basic solution to every problem is to shoot it and hope for the best. Do you really want to live in a country where the problem of firearms becomes so great that you will see heavily armed police everywhere? Because that is what will happen if this shit continues.-Sh1fty- wrote:
The amount of stupidity in this thread arguing for gun control is ridiculous.
Preventing piss-easy access to weapons designed specifically for battlefield situations, not home defence, is just common sense.
Especially in Afghanistan.
Baba Booey