I have had enough.

I grew up in Northern Idaho. Spent time in Montana, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming. I don't understand why people don't see that taking firearms away from the people make the criminals happy.

There was NO crime where I grew up. Mutually assured destruction.

Where I live now, in the Cayman Islands, there are armed robberies. There are armed assaults. The people are not allowed to be armed unless they are rich or of the elite. People lament "when will these robberies stop??" I'll tell you. When somebody who has had enough pulls a family shotgun from under the counter and blows the perp away. Criminals are cowards. They like a deck stacked in their favor. Criminals LOVE "no-gun" zones. Oh yeah. This seems so easy for me to understand.

Listen if I had a magic wand that would allow me to vanquish all firearms, I'd use it (even though my Dad would disown me). But such a thing doesn't exist.

Here's a thought that will be unpopular: I would be in favor of taking things back to bolt-action or lever action rifles and revolvers. I really don't think it would make a difference for the moonbat nutcase who seems to want to kill lots of people. But I think it would make those that want to take ALL the guns happy. I think it's a decent compromise. Those that can shoot wouldn't suffer.

a reply to: INEVERQUIT

Am I the only one that saw something funny with this?

originally posted by: Denoli

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

No, sorry, people kill people.
My gun is right over there and it's not running around shooting any one. My shotgun has been hanging on the rack for....can't remember the last time I shot it.....and it's not killing any one. People do these things. Whether they do it with a gun, a hammer or a golf club, it's not the weapon, it's the maniac on the other end.
Anti 2nd keep saying we should ban assault weapons. Define assault weapon. Any gun used is an assault weapon. There are so many guns that do exactly the same thing, but folks want to ban a gun because it looks like a military style weapon, without realizing that the only difference between an AR and a hunting rifle are purely cosmetic. Same round, same capacity, but the one looks scary and the other, well that's ok, because it doesn't look like the other.

This is the same gun with cosmetic changes only and the ignorant want to ban the one that looks scary.


ETA - Do nuclear weapons launch themselves.......or does it take a person to make that decision to push the button?

This is why people think some Americans are A-HOLES .

lol the statement you made reminds me of beef out of back to the future .


Ps is you last name trump lol

My names trump , BEEF TRUMP lol

It's Biff... Biff ..why don't you make like tree and get out of here... Lol.

a reply to: INEVERQUIT

We had a murder here in Metro Detroit where a woman killed someone with a crockpot! Sooooo........

Guns do not kill without assistance from PEOPLE.
Bombs do not explode without assistance from PEOPLE.

By god your right... how on earth can we justify banning ''BOMBS''

QUICK!!!! didn't you realize your rights are being infringed... banning bombs is the stupidest thing ever.. criminals will just get more bombs.. you cant use your bombs to protect yourself..

don't you realize bombs don't kill people, people with bombs kill people. People who make bombs kill people. Bombs are not the problem.. BOMBS have rights too you know

/s

this thread proves one thing.. American society is getting dumber and dumber with ever massacre or shooting that occurs.
Its obviously a big conspiracy to murder all the kids in school before they can realize how bad guns are and help for a future without guns.

yet another depressing post...

nukes are banned in most countries by the way.

a reply to: DAVID64

Why do you guys go on about how one gun looks scarier to another it really makes no sense....

Answer me a question if you can....
The guy who shot and killed 52 people the other day would it have been possible if he only had say a 9mm with 15 rounds ?

a reply to: _BoneZ_

The only inanimate objects which naturally occur, and would kill you without human intervention, are lumps of raw, radioactive material from inside the Earth. There is very little of that stuff just lying around on the surface, aside from that which might have come up in spoil heaps from mining operations. Other than that, you are absolutely right.

In order for a thing, an object to kill a person, a person has to utilise that object with the intention of doing permanent bodily harm, or cutting another persons life thread.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Actually, the bullet dimensions are largely irrelevant. Further to that, there would have been nothing stopping the man collecting a large number of magazines and filling them. It's not as if every person the Orlando shooter killed, was shot with a bullet from the same magazine, after all. The fellow missed quite a bit, so he probably had several magazines of ammunition.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I am not so sure, forget guns for a second could he have killed 52 people with a knife in the same situation ?

Maybe my understanding is skewed but having a weapon that can fire multiple high capacity rounds in a just a few seconds surely is the reason the death count is so high ...

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

High capacity rounds? What are those?

The speed at which rounds can be shot, from a semi automatic (not a fully automatic, like the military have) is dependant on how fast the trigger finger of the shooter is, and virtually nothing else. You could do the same thing with a revolver and a speed loader. You could do the same thing with a semi automatic pistol, like a Glock or a SigSauer, you could do much worse with a pump action shotgun, the nature of the round means that one could take many lives with a single pull of the trigger.

You could also blow the place up with a fertiliser bomb, or build a chemical weapon with cleaning products, metals, and other utterly innocent things. All of these are methods of dealing death. All of them only have one thing in common. The will to kill. All other factors are irrelevant as long as that will exists. As long as that continues, it does not matter what tool is available, it does not matter what the law says, or what the punishment is for violating it is. What matters is the will to kill.

People say ridiculous things like "at least if he had of been using a knife, the death toll would have been lower". First of all, let's look at that assumption shall we? In a nightclub, with the lights down low, it would be very easy to shank a handful of people before anyone had even realised what was going on, because a knife makes not one tenth of the sound that a rifle or a pistol does, nor does it flash as it kills. Now, if a person is DETERMINED to kill an awful lot of people, then that will, that determination, would allow them to spend significant resources of time and effort, on preparing to do damage.

Given significant time and effort, a total moron could train to kill using a blade, to the point where they would be able to move through a crowd in a darkened room, sowing silent death, with relative ease. It's a damned sight easier to cut a throat, penetrate arteries, organs, the spinal cord, than most people realise.

So would the death toll be lower? It depends, is the correct answer. It depends on how determined the killer is, to kill. It depends how determined his intended victims are to live, and how many would be prepared to give their lives in an attempt to stop the rampage. These all apply to a mass shooting as much as they would a mass knifing. There is NO difference of any importance, what so ever. Death is death, and once the dying starts, number of dead has less to do with the weapon used, than the person who uses it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

High capacity rounds? What are those?

My way of saying it fires lots of big bullets really fast...

I get what you are saying lets just explore the knife avenue, sure one could use stealth to maneuver (surely no different to having a silencer on a firearm).. but seriously how many people lying on the floor with blood gargling would it take for people to notice ?...i really doubt someone could kill 50 odd people in that scenario otherwise why use a military grade weapon if you only need a knife...?...

I do agree if someone wants to kill not much will stop them, however limiting the firepower available to said person could be the difference between 50 people dying or possibly 5....depending on circumstance

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Lots of big bullets? Really fast?

You know a small bullet will kill just as readily. Unarmoured targets will die just as well from a .22 to the skull as a 5.56 or a 7.62 round to the same place. A ruined aorta is game over no matter what size the round is. Heart or head, round size makes little to no difference, save for in terms of over penetration, and when considering distance shooting.

And as for speed, I do not understand your point. It's not as if the shooter rocked up with a full auto M4 and five, hundred round box magazines. Now if THAT had been the case, near enough everyone in the bar would have been injured, three quarters would probably have died, especially if there were choke points, like locked exits for example. The whole room would have been chewed up. A fully automatic weapon with a box magazine in a closed space is a truly terrifying thing to consider the potential of.

But this was NOT a rapid fire weapon. Single shot per pull of the trigger.

a reply to: TrueBrit

And as for speed, I do not understand your point. It's not as if the shooter rocked up with a full auto M4 and five, hundred round box magazines. Now if THAT had been the case, near enough everyone in the bar would have been injured, three quarters would probably have died, especially if there were choke points, like locked exits for example. The whole room would have been chewed up. A fully automatic weapon with a box magazine in a closed space is a truly terrifying thing to consider the potential of.

So there is a very large misunderstanding of exactly what various firearms are capable of at least for me....i take it not everyone is able to get a hold of a fully automatic weapon otherwise there would be a whole lot more casualties ?

ETA..As you explained the weapon used in this latest shooting is one squeeze per shot ...that seems a little personal if one can readily get a hold of something far more deadly ....

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The first thing to understand is, that what is legal, and what is available are two different things. Many states, as far as I know, limit gun owners as to whether or not they can purchase fully automatic firearms legally or not. Some states require a special type of licence or similar, and I would imagine that some states just outright do not permit home ownership of such weapons (although I would imagine that gun ranges probably have certain dispensations so that should someone want to come in and burn off a fifty round magazine in seconds flat, they can get their gun off in a controlled environment).

But the reality is that in EVERY state, there will always be those who can hook you up with equipment via illegal channels, that you wouldn't be able to get else wise. Now, it just so happens that the weapons used in the Orlando event (may the victims rest in perfect peace, by the way), were purchased legally, and therefore were not fully automatic, not of the military specification. But if the shooter had been prepared to get familiar with the local roughs, scallies and denizens of the underworld, he could have laid hands on automatic weapons. He could have gotten a pair of machine pistols with a cyclical rate of roughly 600-900 rounds per minute, and some extra large magazines, and chewed up the room, spray and pray style. He could have gone and got hold of an AA12 automatic combat shotgun (absolutely terrifying bits of kit) and spread so much scattershot round the room that it would have resembled the inside of a smoothie maker, or a grenade launcher, or a flame thrower, or any other assemblage of devastating anti personnel weaponry.

Heck, he could have rolled up with an MG42 heavy machine gun, and shredded the whole building.

There was an incident some years back, where three or four armed robbers wearing ski masks and armoured vests, bust into a bank in the states some place, with AK-47s rifles, the fully automatic variety, and a heavy machine gun of some sort. They hosed down every cop car, every moving thing outside the bank when they came out, letting fly with fully automatic fire in every direction, before getting into their car, and continuing to exchange fire with pursuing cops. They were, eventually, bought down. Three men, versus one whole district worth of police, and it was a mess. In fact, though I cannot remember the numbers of dead and injured, I remember it being significantly lower than I expected.

That was a largely open air affair.

Any one of the firearms I just mentioned would have been nightmarish if deployed in confined environs.

Now, that being said, an automatic weapon is no more dangerous than a semi automatic one, because left alone, unloaded, without a finger on the trigger it is a lump of metal with no animus behind it. The user dictates everything about how it comes to be used.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I think the issue we should be all discussing is reload speed. The longer it takes the more likely the perp will be taken down and innocents escape.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Guns kill get over it.

Your backwards country seems to be the only one full people who don't get it.

Saying guns don't kill people people do is the most stupid argument second amendment advocates have.

Guns kill people just acsept it.

It's a bit like saying heart attacks or nuclear bombs don't kill people..... Stupid

Tell our governments and criminals to disarm, then I MIGHT consider it.

Guns are a necessity just accept it.

a reply to: ms898

It takes next to no time at all to reload a rifle. Mag out, to mag in can take less than a second. Hell, some people can have a fresh mag in and fire the first of a box of thirty before the spent magazine hits the floor.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Brilliant...just brilliant! [/extreme sarcasm]

Your backwards country seems to be the only one full people who don't get it.

This opinion coming to us from a member of a country whose largest city just elected a mayor who thinks it's a good idea to ban racy billboards in public spaces because they're offensive. I'll be interested in your opinions of the latest fashion trends in mandatory burkas when that law gets passed! Coming soon to a UK town near you!

You do know the definition of hypocrisy, right? Or is it jealousy?

Your point is absolutely...pointless!