ugh this again Banning guns and accessories? Fuck no. People have every right to one. Getting your shit together and checking the people who are buying your guns? Fuck Yes.
also, why do people jump on the blame wagon whenever shit hits the fan instead of looking at the person who actually did it? If it's not Music, it's Videogames. If it's not Videogames, it's Movies. If it's not the movies, it's the gun itself. But in the end, it's always just some sick fuck. Yet we try to blame something else because some folk can't fathom that there are people out there that are this fucked up in the head. ..He could have walked in with a "high powuuured .22 hunters rifle" and killed everyone just as easily. Maybe he could have used some pipe bombs and killed everyone. Yet people think that limiting the clip size or banning semi-autos or pistols will do jackshit. I just don't understand how responsible owners pay severely for the crimes of one psycho.
You're a total moron. We should take away guns for EVERYONE'S sake. You wouldn't be defending guns if someone you know was a victim in the Newtown shooting. I can guarantee you that. And if you still did, well then you're just plain dumb/blind.
Don't call me names. I'm bringing up a serious discussion. No, you're right I wouldn't defend guns like some NRA nut. I wouldn't go up in their face and debate that because it would be distasteful and people are still mourning. Do you take me for a fool.
There's no black or white in this. We should take all guns away? Are you kidding me. Would we take them away from the military and the cops as well? No, of course not, we need them. Either that or demonize every single legit gun owner out there. With your logic we should ban all guns. Because criminals and other nations follow our rules, right? Sure if we lived in a wonderful world full of mentally sound, trust-worthy people we could ban or remove them. There would be no need. So many people have no clue what they're talking about. Both the gun nuts AND the 'liberals'. They think they're talking about banning fully-automatic Military grade guns when those have been banned for a long, long time. What they're trying to ban are weapons like an AR-15, which is semi only and shoots only as fast as you can pull the trigger. It only LOOKS like a Military Grade weapon. It's not. Like I said, this tragedy would have sparked the same thing if he walked in with just a pistol. In the end we still have a right to it if we show ourselves to be responsible citizens.
I would be pushing for American mental health improvements and stricter weapon registry/checks, but what makes you think this "Banning push" will improve anything. Psychos and criminals get around that anyways. They will use other things if not. So I 100 percent support Obamas deeper background checking, but I don't support the singular ban itself. Really. Think for a second before looking down your nose. Tell me how taking away a hunting rifle and useless .22 100 round mags or even 20-30 round clips using freaking .223 cartridges will do anything to prevent true psychos in the future. Those people ALWAYS find a way, no matter what bans are placed. This is only serving to slowly limit individual rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens for "safety". So here's a better question. Why don't people ask "Why" he did it, instead of demanding the "How". The how is irrelevant. I want to know why he wasn't picked up as a problem case and why he was given easy access to firearms. He was known to be a problem since he was fucking 5 years old, yet his parents had some guns around the house with easy access. And MANY people knew this. Even his parents were nut jobs, leading again to tougher Gun background checks.
Yet here we are, darting around this crap because people like YOU are so insanely focused on taking away a tool instead of fixing the real problems with America.
This. Fucking this. Gun bans would not solve the issue. It's systemic. A psychotic will murder no matter the tool. Guns are just easy, but the desire to kill is the primary concern. Background checks. Hell, a psychological evaluation. And for fuck's sake, take a long look at the broken state of US mental health care and realize the problem has less to do with firearms and maybe more to do with the piss-poor state of mental health.
I think we should be more focused on mental care than the weapons themselves though. Sure, guns are easy, so make them hard through background checks and qualification tests. I'm also of the opinion that overt media attention to these mass killings draw more of these psychotics into the idea and it becomes a twisted 'become somebody' thing.
Damn I was going to pick one up too before they took them all away, and then I realized I'm legally restricted from owning a firearm. Well technically I'm legally restricted from owning any kind of weapon, but that part was kind of vague. I'm not sure whether that extends to say kitchen knives and stuff. It seemed like it could, but it wasn't really clear. It was clear on the part about me owning grenades and rockets. I'm not sure why they felt the need to single those out specifically.
One thing that I find weird is that there was a guy who drove from Connecticut to his parent's home in Casper, Wyoming, killed his mom with a knife, then went to the college there and killed his dad (a professor) with a crossbow in front of students. So where's the anti-crossbow crowd and the panicking people buying them up before they are banned? Or do people just not care because it's Wyoming...
Here's my deal with guns: You buy one, it's more likely to shoot you or a family member than somebody breaking and entering your home or assaulting you. Better to not have the thing. If you want defense against a burglar or somebody assaulting you, buy a taser. One of those pistol ones. It'll be just as good in the event, and won't end up killing anybody unless you hit them in the eyes or ballsack or something.
Hunters, you only need a few rifles and shotguns. Not a armory big enough to arm a small town. Paramilitants, do you honestly, for a second, think that owning a wardrobe full of assault rifles will somehow protect you from the government? Noooope.
They do have the right. They just have no right to force that upon you if it's your desire to own many weapons. If you're a law-abiding citizen, your rights are there to protect you. but my biggest problem with having everyone armed....everyone is too afraid to speak out their mind (aka Free Speech) because that guy across you has a Gun. Better not piss him off. and some people are just genuinely stupid and have no business using a gun.
Probably. Bear in mind that I don't really support gun regulations. It's no knee-jerk 'protect family' thing with me, though. Simply a matter of maintaining freedoms. But at the same time I think owning a gun for self-protection purposes is just...logically flawed.
but I see a lot of people buying guns they can't control or have no business carrying. A single .45 ACP or the like works just fine, and that's all you'll ever need, unless you hunt or target practice. Of course, if you want something larger. Go for it I guess. So long as you're responsible.
Depends on the situation, truly. .22 pistols and rifles looks almost childish in comparison.
Personally I own a .45ACP and some .22 weapons. Had training and used some of those Super Scary, super taboo AR-15s a while back along with an CZ VZ58 (looks like an AK, only semi). I love em all but if it came down to it, I would keep my .22 only. The other guns are fun to shoot and they're beyond great for hunting game but that's about it. The .22 rounds are super cheap, you can buy em by the THOUSANDS and they're light. Perfect for home defense if need be. That said, .22 rounds are incredibly slow and underpowered so I can see why people would stop at a .45