We need tougher gun laws?? I think not!

[a4u2fear]

certain states need tougher laws, and like OP said, criminals will always find a way to get guns.

[keyboarding]

Let me get this straight,you are saying a man that shoots 70 people killing 12 in less than 2 minutes is not a criminal?

Work on your reading comprehension, pal.

We need knife control laws too. It will help stop stabbings. Too many people dying in car accidents. We need more laws to control that. Too many drunk driving accidents. Clearly we need more laws restricting alcohol. We just flat need the nanny state government to protect us from everything.

That's an almost hysterical response in a reasonable discussion.

You can buy all types of guns and explosives at the Silkroad Armory on the Internet. They break down the gun and ship in pieces.

They ship weapons to Canada and the ammunition? And how does this go against implementing stricter gun laws, not only for buyers but for sellers as well?

I think there were about 30,000 traffic fatalities last year. Logic says with everything you have to accept these incidents which are far and few. The United States is not Canada, simply put we like our guns, we respect those who want to defend themselves.

If the guns were used in self-defense I don't think anyone would mind. Nobody cares about pepper spray being legal because it'd be really fukking hard to kill someone with it but you could put that fukker down no problem.

The discussion is about how fukking easy it is to arm yourself for reasons that make no fukking sense. That's the point. I don't get these comparisons to knives and cars.

When people get in the frame of mind to commit murder, there is not a law on this earth that will stop them period,so if they take the illegal route to acquire weapons,the sky is now the limit, cause anything goes............

Think about it, being able to purchase weapons legally actually limits the criminals fire power.........

You think buying weapons legally restricts the fire power but you also say a criminal who wants to kill will kill no matter what. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. If somebody wants to go on a killing spree, like Holmes did, he shouldn't have to only wait two fukking months to acquire enough weaponry to slaughter a room full of people. It's just too fukking easy right now.

Are you suggesting that guns only have 1 use?

To fire a lethal charge, yes. Is that not what they are designed for?

[MUHerd37]

Stricter gun laws are whats laughable. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S. How's that working out? More killed in Chicago than Afghanistan. There are 80,000,000 gun owners in America with about 260,000,000 guns. We don't need tougher gun laws because some nut kills a bunch of people every once in a while. These mass murders are exactly when the libs start talking bout more gun laws. Look at the assault weapon ban. It did nothing. "The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because assault weapons are rarely used in gun crimes". So assault weapons are rarely used in gun crimes, but lets just ban them anyway. Brilliant. Also, guns have many uses. Not just for killing people. Many people hunt and even more people shoot just for fun. The U.S. has 16,000 to 18,000 indoor ranges alone. Many people shoot guns just for entertainment.

[d2bets]

I don't know what effect stricter gun laws might have had here, but those like Romney who flatly rule out considering additional reasonable gun laws in any way are putting politics ahead of a better society. The Constitution does that Congress can't enact any gun restrictions.

[PickWinnerAllDay]

Muherd, mentioning chicagos murder rate in relation to gun laws is silly because I would guess an absurdly high percentage of Chicago murders are with illegal guns.

Could ban guns entirely, all of the punks in Chicago who got them already aren't going to report to town hall and hand them in, lmao.

[muldoon]

Muherd, mentioning chicagos murder rate in relation to gun laws is silly because I would guess an absurdly high percentage of Chicago murders are with illegal guns.

Not to mention he's comparing (without citing sources) overall crime in a city versus a military action. Is he counting the number of US soldiers killed (the ones who wear body armor and travel in convoys)? Is he counting the total dead soldiers/enemies/innocents?

MUherd is the same type of person during the Iraq war who used to blow off US causalities because California has so many auto fatalities. Stupid logic, and insulting to those who give their life serving.

[MonkeyF0cker]

The shooter wasn't a criminal. He was allowed to purchase 4 firearms at the same time, weapons that he had no business owning.

This would never, ever have happened in Canada the same way. He would have had to buy the guns illegally off the street and if you read about his personality, the kid was a fukking loner. I'd love to see him try to find a seller on the street for four firearms of any kind, let alone assault rifles.

I'm not saying it would have stopped the attack, just wouldn't have happened the same way. By stopping these attacks from being so fukking easy, we can work on solving how to stop other forms of attacks. But for fukk's sake, if a kid has to wait only 2 months to buy 4 guns and walk out the store, it's all a lost cause.

Take away his ability to buy guns and the guy blows up the building instead.

Would that make you feel better?

You can't control maniacs. If you're armed yourself, as a responsible, law-abiding citizen, you have a little better chance against them at least.

[MonkeyF0cker]

You think buying weapons legally restricts the fire power but you also say a criminal who wants to kill will kill no matter what. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. If somebody wants to go on a killing spree, like Holmes did, he shouldn't have to only wait two fukking months to acquire enough weaponry to slaughter a room full of people. It's just too fukking easy right now.

What's a more reasonable time period for him to have to wait?

Never is not a reasonable answer. The means to purchase and/or commit the act are the only things that will change.

[flyingillini]

You can buy all types of guns and explosives at the Silkroad Armory on the Internet. They break down the gun and ship in pieces.

The Armory has some good items but if you dig deeper into the onion network there are sites that put the armory and SR to shame. There is a different world the average Internet user has no clue exists. If you know what to do and how to access it, you can get anything in the world you want. You know what I'm talking about EI. SR and the Armory are ok but there are much better sites and great vendors throughout the world.

[keyboarding]

Take away his ability to buy guns and the guy blows up the building instead.

Would that make you feel better?

You can't control maniacs. If you're armed yourself, as a responsible, law-abiding citizen, you have a little better chance against them at least.

So because maniacs are always going to be maniacs, no point trying to slow down how easy it is to purchase the means to go around and murder people? That's a fascinating defeatist approach to civilization.

And then you turn around and say the more people that are armed, the better controlled the populace will be? You think if every single one of those people in the theatre had a weapon on them, any one of them would have been able to draw their weapon and locate where the shots fired without inadvertently shooting bystanders in the process? Give me a break, pal.

What's a more reasonable time period for him to have to wait?

Never is not a reasonable answer. The means to purchase and/or commit the act are the only things that will change.

I don't have issue with the time, I have issue with the fact once that time passes you can arm yourself for the apocalypse and not raise any red flags.

[MonkeyF0cker]

So because maniacs are always going to be maniacs, no point trying to slow down how easy it is to purchase the means to go around and murder people? That's a fascinating defeatist approach to civilization.

And then you turn around and say the more people that are armed, the better controlled the populace will be? You think if every single one of those people in the theatre had a weapon on them, any one of them would have been able to draw their weapon and locate where the shots fired without inadvertently shooting bystanders in the process? Give me a break, pal.

You conveniently forgot to debate the point I made that he would simply use other means to accomplish a similar (and possibly more damaging) result. Would you rather see him blow the building up?

Someone in the front row may have had a chance to take him out. It's a better chance than they had. You'd rather be a sitting duck apparently.

I don't have issue with the time, I have issue with the fact once that time passes you can arm yourself for the apocalypse and not raise any red flags.

Why did you embolden "two fukking months" then? There are a lot of people who've bought that many guns in that amount of time and not gone on shooting rampages. What is your solution? You want a longer wait period? So he can just go buy something to blow the place up instead? So he can find the guns on the street in the same amount of time? What's your preference? You actually think gun laws are going to stop this guy? "Give me a break, pal."

[keyboarding]

You conveniently forgot to debate the point I made that he would simply use other means to accomplish a similar (and possibly more damaging) result. Would you rather see him blow the building up?

Someone in the front row may have had a chance to take him out. It's a better chance than they had. You'd rather be a sitting duck apparently.

I didn't forget to debate it, I said that we should try and slow down the means to bring harm to others as much as we can. While stopping Holmes from building a bomb might be downright impossible, it wouldn't be nearly as difficult to stop him from buying four different heavy firearms in the same day. That's my point.

I think a metal detector would do a better job stopping everyone from bringing weapons into the theatre. But maybe you're right, crossfire in a crowded theatre might be the easier, smarter choice.

Why did you embolden "two fukking months" then? There are a lot of people who've bought that many guns in that amount of time and not gone on shooting rampages. What is your solution? You want a longer wait period? So he can just go buy something to blow the place up instead? So he can find the guns on the street in the same amount of time? What's your preference? You actually think gun laws are going to stop this guy? "Give me a break, pal."

Well, the rest of my statement related to why I thought two months was ridiculous:
". . . wait two fukking months to acquire enough weaponry to slaughter a room full of people." I used the phrase "enough weaponry" to refer to the fact he bought four weapons in such a short period of time.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I didn't forget to debate it, I said that we should try and slow down the means to bring harm to others as much as we can. While stopping Holmes from building a bomb might be downright impossible, it wouldn't be nearly as difficult to stop him from buying four different heavy firearms in the same day. That's my point.

You're admitting that it would be impossible to stop him from causing massive destruction. What the fukk is your point then? You'd rather be blown up than shot? Ok then.

Why wouldn't it be as difficult to stop him from purchasing explosive chemicals? How many are there? Surely, we could have the government monitor EVERY single transaction that EVERY single citizen makes to ensure that NOBODY MIGHT POSSIBLY have the intention of causing physical harm to other people. Sounds great!

I think a metal detector would do a better job stopping everyone from bringing weapons into the theatre. But maybe you're right, crossfire in a crowded theatre might be the easier, smarter choice.

Yes. We need metal detectors in theaters now. It's quite obvious that would have stopped him. LMAO. Could you be any more densely reactionary?

Well, the rest of my statement related to why I thought two months was ridiculous:
". . . wait two fukking months to acquire enough weaponry to slaughter a room full of people." I used the phrase "enough weaponry" to refer to the fact he bought four weapons in such a short period of time.

Two months is a long time. How long should it be? It's obviously something that you have an issue with. So, name the (completely arbitrary) amount of time that will OBVIOUSLY prevent something like this from happening in the future.

[paco]

Chris rock said it best, make the ammo cost alot.


If someone puts 50 rounds in someone at say $100 a bullet, that person must've really pissed him off

[MonkeyF0cker]

Although it makes a nice comedy sketch, it's not possible. You can cast bullets from lead.

[keyboarding]

Chris rock said it best, make the ammo cost alot.


If someone puts 50 rounds in someone at say $100 a bullet, that person must've really pissed him off

I said the same thing to Extra Innings in the other thread.

[Cougar Bait]

Jesus Keyboarding, is your ass hurting?

Talk about a complete raping.

[opie1988]

Monkeyfocker is a gun advocate?

This is mindblowing to me.

Good for you, pal. I'm a big fan of yours, monkeyfocker.

****please note I like keyboarding as well. I've gone on record declaring him my favorite pinko, liberal hippie-type on the board.

[wikkidinsane]

imma hunt deer meat with an ak Y'all. America, fuk yeh!

[Heisenberg]

[wikkidinsane]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Regulation? Its shitty regulated in my opinon. So i see some of you arguing if the government need to monitor every gunsale. If their were tighter restrictions this guy wouldnt be able to purchase so much high powered machinery. Of course there would be instances of this still going on but it would be a pain in the ass for someone to get all the necessary equipment to carry out a massacre such as this 1. MORE REGULATION!

[ABEHONEST]

How come these dimwits didn't post any of this nonsense on my thread below?
I have read some of the most stupid opinions as to why we need no further gun control, I wonder if I am living in the past world and not the present world? We need civilized citizens in order to preserve civilization. This modern gun world is not only selfish beyond imagination, but insane, too.

Please, any of you morons that do not want stricter gun control, go post on my thread, AFTER, you've read what a civilized society can do if they take the proper measurements. A clue, the USA hasn't, but another powerful country has. A country with 4 times the population and apparently 30 times less gun homicides per year. Read my lips!

[Extra Innings]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Regulation? Its shitty regulated in my opinon. So i see some of you arguing if the government need to monitor every gunsale. If their were tighter restrictions this guy wouldnt be able to purchase so much high powered machinery. Of course there would be instances of this still going on but it would be a pain in the ass for someone to get all the necessary equipment to carry out a massacre such as this 1. MORE REGULATION!

How the fukk do people always forget to emphasize the last line

Pennsylvania got it right with their Constitution

"Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."


Wake up you nitwits!

[MonkeyF0cker]

How come these dimwits didn't post any of this nonsense on my thread below?
I have read some of the most stupid opinions as to why we need no further gun control, I wonder if I am living in the past world and not the present world? We need civilized citizens in order to preserve civilization. This modern gun world is not only selfish beyond imagination, but insane, too.

Please, any of you morons that do not want stricter gun control, go post on my thread, AFTER, you've read what a civilized society can do if they take the proper measurements. A clue, the USA hasn't, but another powerful country has. A country with 4 times the population and apparently 30 times less gun homicides per year. Read my lips!

You want us to be like China? And you're serious about this? LOL.

So move there.

Buh-bye.

[ABEHONEST]

You want us to be like China? And you're serious about this? LOL.

So move there.

Buh-bye.

I see the monkey guy never posted a reason NOT to copy CHINA'S gun laws. I bet he doesn't have a sense-making answer?

[Extra Innings]

I see the monkey guy never posted a reason NOT to copy CHINA'S gun laws. I bet he doesn't have a sense-making answer?

In China they force women to have abortions if they have more than (1) child and can't pay the 6k violation fee. Some would consider that gun control, what do you think Abe?

[MonkeyF0cker]

I see the monkey guy never posted a reason NOT to copy CHINA'S gun laws. I bet he doesn't have a sense-making answer?

I've posted plenty about it.

You talk about a "utopia." I live in reality. You actually think banning guns in the U.S. is going to eliminate crime? You think just laws could possibly separate our nation from violence? You can't be that naive.

There are some pretty significant differences in culture between the U.S. and China - if you're not aware.

[DennisGreen]

Michael Moore approved!

[Extra Innings]

Michael Moore approved!

Easy movie to make when he himself owns a weapon and has the luxury of traveling with a security force.

[ACoochy]

Easy movie to make when he himself owns a weapon and has the luxury of traveling with a security force.

That wasnt the point. And y would he feel the need to have to carry in the 1st place??

Face it NRA=KKK

[DennisGreen]

Easy movie to make when he himself owns a weapon and has the luxury of traveling with a security force.

Americans in general are just overly paranoid. Guess when 90/100 people on average own a gun there it's tough not to be though. What ever happened to solving problems with fists?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Americans in general are just overly paranoid. Guess when 90/100 people on average own a gun there it's tough not to be though. What ever happened to solving problems with fists?

Overly paranoid about people going on going on killing sprees in theaters?

How do gun laws solve paranoia precisely?

[DennisGreen]

Killin' em with logic as usual Key You are too smart for this place

[DennisGreen]

Overly paranoid about people going on going on killing sprees in theaters?

How do gun laws solve paranoia precisely?

Talking about more generalized gun violence in the US. Killing sprees are tougher to address obviously. Guns are available everywhere there so if someone wants to do it he will find a way regardless of gun control.

The main thing that is ridiculous is the gun show loop hole though. Gotta seriously address that and make it tougher to purchase guns.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Would you prefer bombs like in the Middle East?