[No coincidences]

If this guy had been non-white, this thread would look very different. It'd be 90% off day at the SBR klan rally.

Instead of it becoming an NRA PR statement like it is, it'd be a discussion of how this persons racial culture breeds "animals" and how it's acceptable in "their" world.

A cross cultural embracing of violence (games/movies/tv/news) plus easy access to guns. Add into it some mental illness, and this is the by-product. It's horrific and my heart breaks for those people affected.

Lock the thread. Won't be a better post than this.

[d2bets]

Gun control is not the answer.

Of course not. Who could possibly think such a thing.

[No coincidences]

A little bird tells me a popular sports magazine is writing a sports gambling (football) article for this fall and citing SBR. The same bird also tells me that they're astounded at the rampant racism found (and obviously endorsed) by management.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. This site has some really disgusting qualities to it in PT.

[d2bets]

@TC
All those crazy fuks would carry guns regardless of gun laws.
I have the right to defend myself, at home, with a legal gun, as long as I followed the law getting my gun and permit.
Take that right away from me, I'll get a gun illegally to keep at home, to defend my possessions and wife with.

Defending yourself in your home is very different from carrying around a concealed gun everywhere you go. At least in my mind it is.

[stevenash]

Lock the thread. Won't be a better post than this.

I pretty much agree.
But there has to be middle ground on so called 'gun control'
I should have the right to keep a gun in my house, I should not have the right to bring assault rifles to closed in public events.
I should have the right to carry an handgun within reason, I should not have the right to walk around downtown with an AK draped around my shoulder...........

[King Mayan]

Mayan.........do you receive google alerts when the words "white", "mexican", and "obama" are posted at SBR?

Front page PT, homeboy...

You don't think what Muldoon said is true?? Don't be a hypocrite William.

I hate hypocrites.

[No coincidences]

I pretty much agree.
But there has to be middle ground on so called 'gun control'
I should have the right to keep a gun in my house, I should not have the right to bring assault rifles to closed in public events.
I should have the right to carry an handgun within reason, I should not have the right to walk around downtown with an AK draped around my shoulder...........

Agree 110%.

It's not about gun control to me -- it's about gun access. It scares me how easily someone can obtain a semi-automatic weapon these days, and it's not like it's going to be any more difficult in the future.

[ACoochy]

Guns= negative outcomes.

Have never known it to be ANY other way...

[acl123]

Who gives a fukk

[opie1988]

Agree 110%.

It's not about gun control to me -- it's about gun access.

I disagree 110%.

You cannot start policing gun access. Who decides when an where I should have the rights afforded to me in the constitution? If this type of concession is given, it creates snowball effect that would never stop.

I have no criminal record of any kind. Why shouldn't I be allowed access to any type of firearm I choose to own as long as its purchased and registered legally?

[stevenash]

Agree 110%.

It's not about gun control to me -- it's about gun access. It scares me how easily someone can obtain a semi-automatic weapon these days, and it's not like it's going to be any more difficult in the future.

Like I said earlier, prohibit booze like in the '20's you'd still be able to get it, prohibit anything, if you want it, you'll still be able to get it.

When I worked in NYC, there was a 10 block radius in the East Village (East 8th St. area) where you could get, a bet in, a handgun, a gram of coke, a whore, you name it.

[muldoon]

I pretty much agree.
But there has to be middle ground on so called 'gun control'
I should have the right to keep a gun in my house, I should not have the right to bring assault rifles to closed in public events.
I should have the right to carry an handgun within reason, I should not have the right to walk around downtown with an AK draped around my shoulder...........

You'd be labelled a slippery slope anti gun advocate by many.

"Within reason" sounds great. Not so much when making/passing/enforcing laws.

[stevenash]

Guns= negative outcomes.

Have never known it to be ANY other way...

I have seen where guns prevented a bad situation become a worse situation.

[paranoyd androyd]

Every little while we get crazy motherfukkers like this pop up

John Wayne Gacy
Jeff Dahmer
Timmy McVeigh
Bin Laden


the list is endless

horrible comparison

[d2bets]

I disagree 110%.

You cannot start policing gun access. Who decides when an where I should have the rights afforded to me in the constitution? If this type of concession is given, it creates snowball effect that would never stop.

I have no criminal record of any kind. Why shouldn't I be allowed access to any type of firearm I choose to own as long as its purchased and registered legally?

Seems that John Holmes didn't have any criminal record of any kind either.

[acl123]

Just another 12 dead people.
Nothing to see here.

[opie1988]

Seems that John Holmes didn't have any criminal record of any kind either.

What does that have to do with anything? Do you think the government deciding that he could no longer buy a handgun would've swayed him to go the other way on his decision to kill a dozen innocent people?

The guy is a sick fukk. Gun control won't change that.

[Bluehorseshoe]

I disagree 110%.

You cannot start policing gun access. Who decides when an where I should have the rights afforded to me in the constitution? If this type of concession is given, it creates snowball effect that would never stop.

I have no criminal record of any kind. Why shouldn't I be allowed access to any type of firearm I choose to own as long as its purchased and registered legally?

Can't you at least draw the line on automatic weapons? There's is no need for people walking around with AK-47's.

[opie1988]

Just another 12 dead people.
Nothing to see here.

Shut the fukk up, moron. I realize you're desperately trying to attain some relevance on here by coming off as shocking and callous, but its actually only serving to affirm the overall belief that you're simply a pathetic, immature dildo.

Those 12 people included fathers, mothers, and little kids. Show them some respect.

[frogsrangers]

Can't you at least draw the line on automatic weapons? There's is no need for people walking around with AK-47's.

Something tells me this guy wouldn't give a fuk if AK-47s were illegal

Someone who is willing to shoot 50 people in a movie theatre aren't going to be swayed/deter by gun laws.

[acl123]

Opie fukk off you fukking pansie bitch.
Ive had about enough of your gay ass shit

[k13]

Like I said earlier, prohibit booze like in the '20's you'd still be able to get it, prohibit anything, if you want it, you'll still be able to get it.

When I worked in NYC, there was a 10 block radius in the East Village (East 8th St. area) where you could get, a bet in, a handgun, a gram of coke, a whore, you name it.

Most of Europe, Japan, Singapore, S. Korea are basically prohibited, look at their gun crimes/homicides.

The reason why it would not work here is the pool of guns out there is already too big, obviously nothing would stop someone from accessing it. That's how the society was brought up so now people have to deal with it.

People in those countries don't even "think" about guns. Don't even talk about them.

If someone wanted to do this every single day, there is nothing that can done about it. No laws pro or against.

[stuntin909]

People saying gun control is the reason are morons.

Strict gun laws = people who really wanna kill people will pay any price to get a gun and will eventual acquire one. Everyone else will be unarmed.

Lenient gun laws = a lot of people will have guns for self defense and protection. Might deter people from acting a stupid

[frogsrangers]

Most of Europe, Japan, Singapore, S. Korea are basically prohibited, look at their gun crimes/homicides.

The reason why it would not work here is the pool of guns out there is already too big, obviously nothing would stop someone from accessing it. That's how the society was brought up so now people have to deal with it.

People in those countries don't even "think" about guns. Don't even talk about them.

If someone wanted to do this every single day, there is nothing that can done about it. No laws pro or against.

Look at all the knife attacks in Japan though. People will attack others if they want to, the only thing that changes is the weapon used

Look at all the bombings in Europe

People who want to kill will use whatever means avaliable to kill.

[Bluehorseshoe]

Something tells me this guy wouldn't give a fuk if AK-47s were illegal

Someone who is willing to shoot 50 people in a movie theatre aren't going to be swayed/deter by gun laws.

That's great logic. Why not make everything legal then?

[acl123]

You guys are arguing with a 3 time bush voting born with a silver spoon in his mouth blonde haired twink.
Its useless.

[frogsrangers]

People saying gun control is the reason are morons.

Strict gun laws = people who really wanna kill people will pay any price to get a gun and will eventual acquire one. Everyone else will be unarmed.

Lenient gun laws = a lot of people will have guns for self defense and protection. Might deter people from acting a stupid

I bet this guy would have thought twice before going into a theatre to shoot it up if he knew that the people inside the theatre were armed. Not really a grand shooting spree if you get greased before you can even get a few shots off.

Killers like this pick easy targets like theatres because they know the people in them will be unarmed

[Bluehorseshoe]

People saying gun control is the reason are morons.

That pretty much says it all.

[frogsrangers]

That's great logic. Why not make everything legal then?

Because what does banning assault weapons accomplish?

It's no different than the war on drugs. People who want drugs will find a way to get them even if the sale and possession of them are illegal. No different than assualt weapons.

It's just a way for politicians to beat their chests while being oblivious to the fact that people who really want the weapons will still get them.

In the end nothing is accomplished

[Bluehorseshoe]

Because what does banning assault weapons accomplish?

It's no different than the war on drugs. People who want drugs will find a way to get them even if the sale and possession of them are illegal. No different than assualt weapons.

It's just a way for politicians to beat their chests while being oblivious to the fact that people who really want the weapons will still get them.

In the end nothing is accomplished

So everything should be legal then?

[No coincidences]

I disagree 110%.

You cannot start policing gun access. Who decides when an where I should have the rights afforded to me in the constitution? If this type of concession is given, it creates snowball effect that would never stop.

I have no criminal record of any kind. Why shouldn't I be allowed access to any type of firearm I choose to own as long as its purchased and registered legally?

By access, I mean it's scary to think of how easily you can obtain a semi-automatic weapon if you try hard enough.

I have a few gun-crazed buddies that really have no business owning the firearms they do. I admit I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the situation, but they didn't exactly have to go through the ringer to obtain them, you know?

I think it should be more difficult to obtain a firearm (deeper background checks), but I have no problem

[brooks85]

Never would have happened if laws were in place where guns were banned. But sadly the right wing sickos cling to the misguided belief that a 200 year old piece of garbage is they way our country should be run today.

you are so right, only if the laws were in place because we know criminals obey laws....

[No coincidences]

The reason why it would not work here is the pool of guns out there is already too big, obviously nothing would stop someone from accessing it. That's how the society was brought up so now people have to deal with it.

People in those countries don't even "think" about guns. Don't even talk about them.

Well said k.

[Brock Landers]

How do you feel about gun control?

Same way I feel about birth control, doesn't work

[stevenash]

You'd be labelled a slippery slope anti gun advocate by many.

"Within reason" sounds great. Not so much when making/passing/enforcing laws.

Label be whatever, I am harmless, unless someone comes at me, my property, or my wife or dogs.
Than all bets are off, I become harmless no more.