Got a question for people. Did you know around 80-90% of guns used in crimes are illegal anyway? CRIMINALS dont follow gun laws lol! The laws only hurt law abiding gun owners.
Got a question for people. Did you know around 80-90% of guns used in crimes are illegal anyway? CRIMINALS dont follow gun laws lol! The laws only hurt law abiding gun owners. AdamPA1006
Got a question for people. Did you know around 80-90% of guns used in crimes are illegal anyway? CRIMINALS dont follow gun laws lol! The laws only hurt law abiding gun owners. AdamPA1006
Logistically there is no way to dearm a population of 300+ million without missing things and leaving a huge black market in it's wake. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention cops would refuse such orders, and those who actually defend the constitution(our troops) might as well.
You are a fascist.
TheWalkingGhost
I find it funny that people like you and others that are logically debating are being called stupid by people who think we can just up and ban guns, and then it will all be rainbows and kisses. One even pointed out about homemade explosives, which he used. Hilarious somebody with the burning flag called Americans stupid, but was stupid enough to miss all this. Classic. FYI, we all ready have a huge black market. Banning guns would make it worse. I called Americans stupid because they all went out and brought guns after this shooting, If you want specific reasons why, just ask me. I don't want to ban guns because much like the drug ban. it doesn't do anything to stop it.
Why would you need a high capacity magazine? l4dak47
Because there's no reason for me not to have one? Not to mention criminals already have them, I'd rather be able to buy some decent MAGPULs instead of relying on older ones, though I did get lucky and found a lot of new Center Industries preban magazines that are exceptionally well-made.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"]Why would you need a high capacity magazine? airshocker
Because there's no reason for me not to have one? Not to mention criminals already have them, I'd rather be able to buy some decent MAGPULs instead of relying on older ones, though I did get lucky and found a lot of new Center Industries preban magazines that are exceptionally well-made.
If there's no good reason to ban something, then it shouldn't be. I gotcha. Was just wondering. I also hold that belief.
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Fine then explain to me why a SAW should be illegal but an assault rifle with a drug shouldn't be. l4dak47
Simply because cops don't have machine guns, neither should the populace.
As for the issue of magazines(I'm assuming you're referring to a drum magazine), I have less of an issue with high capacity drum magazines being banned than I do with the standard 30 round ones being banned. New York bans all 30 round magazines that were made after 1992. I think that's ridiculous and doesn't do a damn thing to stop anything. People will get a high capacity magazine if they really want one, and it only forces us law-abiding citizens to pay upwards of 30 dollars a magazine in order to get ones that are preban.
Just because I have access to high capacity magazines doesn't mean I'm going to be committing a crime with them.
Why would you need a high capacity magazine? Are you joking or just being dense ??
What's the difference between an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine and a SAW that shoot the same caliber round?
So you wouldn't mind if assault rifle magazines were limited to 30 rounds for civilian use?
HoolaHoopMan
Rate of fire, for one. You can't be bisected by an AR-15. Somebody could set up an M249 and set it to fire until the magazine runs dry, possibly killing hundreds of people. Can't do that with an AR-15.
No, I wouldn't mind that. It would be a step-up from the current laws.
Logistically there is no way to dearm a population of 300+ million without missing things and leaving a huge black market in it's wake. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention cops would refuse such orders, and those who actually defend the constitution(our troops) might as well.
You are a fascist.
l4dak47
I find it funny that people like you and others that are logically debating are being called stupid by people who think we can just up and ban guns, and then it will all be rainbows and kisses. One even pointed out about homemade explosives, which he used. Hilarious somebody with the burning flag called Americans stupid, but was stupid enough to miss all this. Classic. FYI, we all ready have a huge black market. Banning guns would make it worse. I called Americans stupid because they all went out and brought guns after this shooting, If you want specific reasons why, just ask me. I don't want to ban guns because much like the drug ban. it doesn't do anything to stop it. Buying a legal product because you fear it will be banned is stupid? :roll: And based on your signature I know what I will get out of you.
Simply because cops don't have machine guns, neither should the populace.
As for the issue of magazines(I'm assuming you're referring to a drum magazine), I have less of an issue with high capacity drum magazines being banned than I do with the standard 30 round ones being banned. New York bans all 30 round magazines that were made after 1992. I think that's ridiculous and doesn't do a damn thing to stop anything. People will get a high capacity magazine if they really want one, and it only forces us law-abiding citizens to pay upwards of 30 dollars a magazine in order to get ones that are preban.
Just because I have access to high capacity magazines doesn't mean I'm going to be committing a crime with them.
noscope-ak47
Why would you need a high capacity magazine? Are you joking or just being dense ?? Dense for asking a question?
If there's no good reason to ban something, then it shouldn't be. I gotcha. Was just wondering. I also hold that belief. l4dak47
All someone in NY has to do is go over to PA and buy brand new ones at a gun store. They don't ask for ID when buying firearm accessories. The only thing the NY person won't be able to do is bring those magazines to a range. All this does is send business elsewhere and it doesn't protect us any further.
Why would you need a high capacity magazine? l4dak47
Why don't you carry four or five wallets on you when you have a lot of cash on your person? Makes perfect sense to me: lose one wallet and lose all your money or just some of it?
Because carrying a bunch of wallets is more trouble than it's worth.
When you're hunting, weight and space are at a premium. I don't even take a bedroll because that's weight and space I can fit more food and water in.
Understand that walking 10-15 miles a day isn't uncommon when running down some game.
I usually carry 10 round mags for my .30-06 and the standard mag for this model is just 4. Those extra rounds come in handy when hunting boar.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]I find it funny that people like you and others that are logically debating are being called stupid by people who think we can just up and ban guns, and then it will all be rainbows and kisses. One even pointed out about homemade explosives, which he used. Hilarious somebody with the burning flag called Americans stupid, but was stupid enough to miss all this. Classic. FYI, we all ready have a huge black market. Banning guns would make it worse. TheWalkingGhost
I called Americans stupid because they all went out and brought guns after this shooting, If you want specific reasons why, just ask me. I don't want to ban guns because much like the drug ban. it doesn't do anything to stop it. Buying a legal product because you fear it will be banned is stupid? :roll: And based on your signature I know what I will get out of you. That fear is largely unfounded. Not even Obama( supposedly the biggest threat to gun rights) have done anything to increase gun control.
Logistically there is no way to dearm a population of 300+ million without missing things and leaving a huge black market in it's wake. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention cops would refuse such orders, and those who actually defend the constitution(our troops) might as well.
You are a fascist.
l4dak47
I find it funny that people like you and others that are logically debating are being called stupid by people who think we can just up and ban guns, and then it will all be rainbows and kisses. One even pointed out about homemade explosives, which he used. Hilarious somebody with the burning flag called Americans stupid, but was stupid enough to miss all this. Classic. FYI, we all ready have a huge black market. Banning guns would make it worse. I called Americans stupid because they all went out and brought guns after this shooting, If you want specific reasons why, just ask me. I don't want to ban guns because much like the drug ban. it doesn't do anything to stop it. No they didn't.:|
[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Why would you need a high capacity magazine? l4dak47
Are you joking or just being dense ?? Dense for asking a question? If somebody calls you dense for asking a question, it always means it was a stupid question and you should know the answer.
What's the difference between an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine and a SAW that shoot the same caliber round?
So you wouldn't mind if assault rifle magazines were limited to 30 rounds for civilian use?
airshocker
Rate of fire, for one. You can't be bisected by an AR-15. Somebody could set up an M249 and set it to fire until the magazine runs dry, possibly killing hundreds of people. Can't do that with an AR-15.
No, I wouldn't mind that. It would be a step-up from the current laws.
They're both going to be spitting out rounds at an immense rate, that's what they're designed for. I fail the see the huge difference between the two when one empties their rounds at a marginally faster rate than the other.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"]If there's no good reason to ban something, then it shouldn't be. I gotcha. Was just wondering. I also hold that belief. airshocker
All someone in NY has to do is go over to PA and buy brand new ones at a gun store. They don't ask for ID when buying firearm accessories. The only thing the NY person won't be able to do is bring those magazines to a range. All this does is send business elsewhere and it doesn't protect us any further.
I understand. We had a similar thing happening here with Ct and its alcohol laws.
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="l4dak47"]I find it funny that people like you and others that are logically debating are being called stupid by people who think we can just up and ban guns, and then it will all be rainbows and kisses. One even pointed out about homemade explosives, which he used. Hilarious somebody with the burning flag called Americans stupid, but was stupid enough to miss all this. Classic. FYI, we all ready have a huge black market. Banning guns would make it worse. l4dak47
I called Americans stupid because they all went out and brought guns after this shooting, If you want specific reasons why, just ask me. I don't want to ban guns because much like the drug ban. it doesn't do anything to stop it. No they didn't.:| Genius isn't he.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]I find it funny that people like you and others that are logically debating are being called stupid by people who think we can just up and ban guns, and then it will all be rainbows and kisses. One even pointed out about homemade explosives, which he used. Hilarious somebody with the burning flag called Americans stupid, but was stupid enough to miss all this. Classic. FYI, we all ready have a huge black market. Banning guns would make it worse. LJS9502_basic
I called Americans stupid because they all went out and brought guns after this shooting, If you want specific reasons why, just ask me. I don't want to ban guns because much like the drug ban. it doesn't do anything to stop it. No they didn't.:| Background gun checks increased like 60% after the shooting. What are you talking about?
[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]Are you joking or just being dense ??TheWalkingGhost
Dense for asking a question? If somebody calls you dense for asking a question, it always means it was a stupid question and you should know the answer. Stop being such a little b*tch.
They're both going to be spitting out rounds at an immense rate, that's what they're designed for. I fail the see the huge difference between the two when one empties their rounds at a marginally faster rate than the other. HoolaHoopMan
Marginally? A 249 has a much higher cyclic ROF than an AR-15 and is less prone to jamming in ideal conditions. Say you had a belt feeder on the M249, you could put through MUCH more ammunition than if you had the highest capacity drum-magazine for an M4.
The M249 is a much more dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. I would rather go up against someone with an AR-15.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] I called Americans stupid because they all went out and brought guns after this shooting, If you want specific reasons why, just ask me. I don't want to ban guns because much like the drug ban. it doesn't do anything to stop it. No they didn't.:| Background gun checks increased like 60% after the shooting. What are you talking about? Then I take it that you now retract your statement that Americans ALL went out and bought guns. 60% < 100%.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] Dense for asking a question? If somebody calls you dense for asking a question, it always means it was a stupid question and you should know the answer. Stop being such a little b*tch. I was explaining it to you. Grow up.
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] I called Americans stupid because they all went out and brought guns after this shooting, If you want specific reasons why, just ask me. I don't want to ban guns because much like the drug ban. it doesn't do anything to stop it. No they didn't.:| Genius isn't he. Apparently you are not......
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] If somebody calls you dense for asking a question, it always means it was a stupid question and you should know the answer. Stop being such a little b*tch. I was explaining it to you. Grow up. You were insulting, not explaining.
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]They're both going to be spitting out rounds at an immense rate, that's what they're designed for. I fail the see the huge difference between the two when one empties their rounds at a marginally faster rate than the other. airshocker
Marginally? A 249 has a much higher cyclic ROF than an AR-15 and is less prone to jamming in ideal conditions. Say you had a belt feeder on the M249, you could put through MUCH more ammunition than if you had the highest capacity drum-magazine for an M4.
The M249 is a much more dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. I would rather go up against someone with an AR-15.
Say we compare a SAW with a closer fire rate then? So you're saying ROF is the determining standard for legality?
Edit: Interestingly I checked the ROF of both on Wikipedia. AR-15 at 800 per minute, M-249 at 800 per minute for cyclic. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] No they didn't.:| Genius isn't he. Apparently you are not...... I was supporting you and knew what you meant...Stop being such a little b*tch.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] Stop being such a little b*tch. I was explaining it to you. Grow up. You were insulting, not explaining. I wasn't insulting you. That wasn't even my opinion but a common statement of others.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No they didn't.:| Background gun checks increased like 60% after the shooting. What are you talking about? Then I take it that you now retract your statement that Americans ALL went out and bought guns. 60% < 100%. I do. Perhaps a better word would have been a majority.
What's the difference between an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine and a SAW that shoot the same caliber round?
So you wouldn't mind if assault rifle magazines were limited to 30 rounds for civilian use?
HoolaHoopMan
Rate of fire, for one. You can't be bisected by an AR-15. Somebody could set up an M249 and set it to fire until the magazine runs dry, possibly killing hundreds of people. Can't do that with an AR-15.
No, I wouldn't mind that. It would be a step-up from the current laws.
They're both going to be spitting out rounds at an immense rate, that's what they're designed for. I fail the see the huge difference between the two when one empties their rounds at a marginally faster rate than the other. You know even if I broke down the specs to you and the pro's and cons you would not understand what I was talking about based on your post. You think what you think and you don't care that people who know what they are talking about think cause your the expert in your own mind.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] Background gun checks increased like 60% after the shooting. What are you talking about? Then I take it that you now retract your statement that Americans ALL went out and bought guns. 60% < 100%. I do. Perhaps a better word would have been a majority. This thread is about one state.
An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle folks... The AR does not stand for "assault rifle", despite what some people think. The AR-15 is the civilian semi-auto rifle that is based off of the M16. An AR-15 functions the same way a handgun does. Cosmetics do not make something an assault rifle. Yes, the AR-15 looks intimidating, but hell, it works the same as my .22 with a magazine. Even though gun shops like listing it as an "assault rifle" I assure you it isn't, at least not in the traditional definition.
Rate of fire, for one. You can't be bisected by an AR-15. Somebody could set up an M249 and set it to fire until the magazine runs dry, possibly killing hundreds of people. Can't do that with an AR-15.
No, I wouldn't mind that. It would be a step-up from the current laws.
noscope-ak47
They're both going to be spitting out rounds at an immense rate, that's what they're designed for. I fail the see the huge difference between the two when one empties their rounds at a marginally faster rate than the other. You know even if I broke down the specs to you and the pro's and cons you would not understand what I was talking about based on your post. You think what you think and you don't care that people who know what they are talking about think cause your the expert in your own mind.
Talking to people like you is a waste of time.
Then don't bother quoting me at all then. Simple really.
Say we compare a SAW with a closer fire rate then? So you're saying ROF is the determining standard for legality?HoolaHoopMan
A weapon can have a high ROF and still not be as deadly as an M249. Legality should be determined not only by the weapon's capability for destruction, but by other reasons. I see no valid reason why someone should have an M249. I do, however, see a reason why someone should have an AR-15. Whether it be fully automatic, or semi-auto. Hunting, sport shooting, self defense, pride of ownership(like cars, there are many ways to modify an AR-15), etc.
Also, the risk the AR-15 poses to the population is far less than that of the M249.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Then I take it that you now retract your statement that Americans ALL went out and bought guns. 60% < 100%.TheWalkingGhost
I do. Perhaps a better word would have been a majority. This thread is about one state. I'm aware of that. However, a similar thing happened with the entire nation when Obama was voted into office.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] I do. Perhaps a better word would have been a majority. This thread is about one state. I'm aware of that. However, a similar thing happened with the entire nation when Obama was voted into office. Not relevant to this thread. This is about people fearing bannings or tighter restrictions after the shooting. This fear has little to do with Obama being President.
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Say we compare a SAW with a closer fire rate then? So you're saying ROF is the determining standard for legality?airshocker
A weapon can have a high ROF and still not be as deadly as an M249. Legality should be determined not only by the weapon's capability for destruction, but by other reasons. I see no valid reason why someone should have an M249. I do, however, see a reason why someone should have an AR-15. Whether it be fully automatic, or semi-auto. Hunting, sport shooting, self defense, pride of ownership(like cars, there are many ways to modify an AR-15), etc.
So would you argue for the legality of an assault rifle that matches or exceeds the M249 in ROF and has the ability to augment with drum mags?
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] This thread is about one state. I'm aware of that. However, a similar thing happened with the entire nation when Obama was voted into office. Not relevant to this thread. This is about people fearing bannings or tighter restrictions after the shooting. This fear has little to do with Obama being President. Wat? Are you really this stupid? I was comparing what happened a few years ago to what's happening now with paranoid people buying more guns based on unfounded fears of gun control. It's a valid comparison to make.
[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]Got a question for people. Did you know around 80-90% of guns used in crimes are illegal anyway? CRIMINALS dont follow gun laws lol! The laws only hurt law abiding gun owners. HoolaHoopMan
*Citation needed.
Does FBI work for you? As always people need to get out of their dream lands, and accept more gun laws do not matter. Criminals will get their guns no matter what.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] I'm aware of that. However, a similar thing happened with the entire nation when Obama was voted into office. Not relevant to this thread. This is about people fearing bannings or tighter restrictions after the shooting. This fear has little to do with Obama being President. Wat? Are you really this stupid? I was comparing what happened a few years ago to what's happening now with paranoid people buying more guns based on unfounded fears of gun control. It's a valid comparison to make. :roll: You really are a moron. Obviously the comment that this fear has little to do with who is president went over your head. The people would have reacted the same with Romney or McCain. Reading comprehension, improve it.
So would you argue for the legality of an assault rifle that matches or exceeds the M249 in ROF and has the ability to augment with drum mags?HoolaHoopMan
Cyclically you can't match the ROF of a 249 with the M4. The capabilities of the weapon system do not allow for it. The barrel would melt before you put half as many rounds through it. Would I agree that civilians don't really need a drum magazine? Sure, but on the other hand there are states that allow for such an item to be sold, so it's not very hard to get.
Just because you HAVE the capability to put large amounts of ammunition through a weapon doesn't mean you actually can. The gun can, and will, become so hot that rounds would go off before being properly seated in the barrel. That's a good way to get yourself killed.
[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] Then no American would be able to buy o
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]Got a question for people. Did you know around 80-90% of guns used in crimes are illegal anyway? CRIMINALS dont follow gun laws lol! The laws only hurt law abiding gun owners. AdamPA1006
*Citation needed.
Does FBI work for you? As always people need to get out of their dream lands, and accept more gun laws do not matter. Criminals will get their guns no matter what.
[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] Then no American would be able to buy o[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"] *Citation needed. TheWalkingGhost
Does FBI work for you? As always people need to get out of their dream lands, and accept more gun laws do not matter. Criminals will get their guns no matter what.
1997?
Do you honestly think that criminals get their guns legally?? Find any source you want, a very high percentage of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally.
[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]What freedom is that? The freedom to kill anyone you want? Ownership of weapons is forbidden here. I don't need weapons to defend myself. I wouldn't wish for a weapon if someone points a weapon at me. I would wish my adversary would not have obtained that weapon to begin with. How do we do that? By banning guns. We're not f-ing soldiers, we're not in some private army or in a war, what kind of business would civilian have with a gun? Self-defence? Don't make my laugh. Guns are for cowards. Go join the military if you're into guns, maybe that way you'll learn the value of human life and how one's life is not worth taking for the sake of self-defence of your pitiful existence. Shoot all the virtual enemies with your virtual guns all you want, but only cowards use guns to fend themselves. True heroes use guns as a last means to save other's lives. Digusting how the world has devolved into savages that proclaim bearing arms is a constitutional right. Yes it is...that is if you are also willing to say that to the families of the deceased victims of this shooting. If you have credibility or any balls at all, you would say that to them.airshocker
Cowardice is only being represented by you. No one in their right mind would say anything but they're sorry to the families who have lost loved ones. You must be deluded.
Actually not wanting to do anything about it because you're not willing to take a chance is actual cowardice. Basic freedoms are freedom of speach, the right to have basic food like bread and water, right to live in a safe environment and the right of education. Never is the ability to wear arms called a freedom. Just give up this misplaced freedom of your so in the future, incidents like these can be avoided. You're right anyone would say sorry to those families, yet 100m in the neighbourhood of the shooting a gunshop owner said that this would have never happened if someone in the audience was carrying a gun. How disrespectful is that? Laying the blaim on the victims themselves. The sick bastard had access to fully automated guns...to ensure he could kill as much as possible with a few clips. Now if there was a ban on guns, even on the black market it would be very difficult to get your hands on a fully automated gun. Let's say we live in a world with a ban on guns and he only got his hands on a single pistol. That would have killed considerably less people than the automated gun. America shouldn't be the one to spread their freedoms to the world like a veneral disease, with it's people taking family trips to the firing range.
Does FBI work for you? As always people need to get out of their dream lands, and accept more gun laws do not matter. Criminals will get their guns no matter what.
AdamPA1006
1997?
Do you honestly think that criminals get their guns legally?? Find any source you want, a very high percentage of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally.
Criminals do not care about gun laws.
And how ironic it is that this guy in particular was licensed to buy and carry firearms. Actually, it's not ironic considering the lives lost.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]Not relevant to this thread. This is about people fearing bannings or tighter restrictions after the shooting. This fear has little to do with Obama being President.TheWalkingGhost
Wat? Are you really this stupid? I was comparing what happened a few years ago to what's happening now with paranoid people buying more guns based on unfounded fears of gun control. It's a valid comparison to make. :roll: You really are a moron. Obviously the comment that this fear has little to do with who is president went over your head. The people would have reacted the same with Romney or McCain. Reading comprehension, improve it. You don't understand much of anything, do you? You and noscope should hang out.
You think this guy, who spent months planning this, he would give up if he couldnt get a gun legally? He wouldnt just go to the streets of the nearest major city and get one illegally?
Log in to comment