(or course most of what comes out of Hollywood is crap anyway)

Most likely they will hone in on the entertainment industry as a whole. They always do. You know because crazy people did not exist before film, music and video games... right??

The gunman wore a bullet-proof vest, tactical body armour and gloves, and was carrying an AR-15 military-style, semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun and two pistols, police said. The gunman, whom witnesses said had said nothing during the attack, threw two tear gas grenades then opened fire with a rifle.

Getting mostly wounded is the norm with personal firearms. Wounding isn't all bad though, since the level of wounding takes the guy out of combat duty, treating wounded ties up valuable resources on the other side and takes even more people off the front line(Medical personel/equipment and soldiers/vehicles to transport them. Killing the guy removes 1 soldier from direct combat, wounding him removes the victim and 2-4 others+vehicle+resources temporarily) and having badly mutilated people is bad for enemy morale. Also with personal armor being widely available and taking in to account normal fighting distances of infantry combat, weapons like shotguns and pistols are at a clear disadvantage.

I really have to respond to your post to inject at least some rationality into your world...

You offer prayers to the dead (like that's going to do them any good) and then imply that a no-gun policy won't work. Don't you think it would be more rational to ban guns and ignore religion...do both of those things and the world will be a FAR safer place than it is today.

If the US won't ban guns, ban the sale of ammo or price it exorbitantly - 10,000 dollars a round sir?

*Meanwhile in England*

And like Dietrich says (but way cooler) I will cede my 2nd amendment rights to whoever is able to take them from me

First, for those who might claim that Amendment 2 is "outdated because then they only has flintlocks", I would say that the same argument can be made against the first amendment becuase all they had then was the pen and the printing press.

Based on that idea, if that happened, and they did once and it didn't work ("Clinton gun ban" 1994 - 2004), then I want every sporty car to be taken off the road.

In fact, there are two double standards. You can get a felony conviction not related to violence or guns, and never be allowed to own a gun again, yet you can get a felony conviction wtih illegal road racing - if you get caught enough - and then after your license is suspended for a while, you can own and operate vehicles again.

Hmmmm

I knew a fellow who could not own guns because he was a road racer, and he drove a suped up truck with a nitrous bottle in it as big as a SCUBA tank.

Now, if someone can go to my rifle and say "you don't need that high capacity magazine (and people I have met who say that think more than 10 rounds is high cap), then I certainly want to see all the rice boys and car enthusiasts be told they don't need that turbocharger, nitrous, etc.

It's only fair, right?

The tens of millons of guns out there are not owned for criminal purposes, yet a car designed to go fast is in fact designed to break the law.


What I want is that if I can't be free, I want everybody to live in the same tyranny and nanny state that I do.

A sports car is built for what?

Speed, right?

And on the same roads as everybody else too.


Back in the 1990s, I heard a very common refrain from all those suburban soccer moms regarding their SUV: "If there is an accident, I want the people in the other vehicle to die". Mike Judge made fun of this mentality in a "King of the Hill" episode.

Might I need to cite motor vehicle deaths ?


Keep this in mind though, real freedom is not needing acceptance or permission from the likes of you. So nothing you say is going to change my mind. I have guns because I can.

Just a quick note, as I don't intend to get any more involved in the argument than this:

When people died in the shooting in Norway, the response was "Oh my God, how horrible! Our hearts go out to the people of Norway!" Yet, when something similar happened in the United States, the forums exploded with 'That's what you get for being dirty, evil warmongers and allowing your people to own firearms!"

I don't know about you, but to me that seems more than a tiny bit prejudiced and cold-hearted.

That's both messed up to say and patently false.

Define "military grade weaponry".

guns don't kill people.

Oh please... silenced saigas?

I see your saigas and raise you a Russian

Because the people running the gun store have guns?

I'm going to go see the new batman movie tomorrow, if the 3D is as great as they say I should see bullet holes!

OMG the butthurt is strong with this one...

Dude... read the thread again. My point is that when you restrict civilian gun ownership, crime rises because criminals know you don't have guns. I've lived on places with many gun restrictions and this is usually the end result. If you want to have a discussion about it, feel free to list countries, along with their gun laws and their crime rates.

I googled and The Telegraph said:

"The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research."

Linky here for your review

In yet another tragic episode of sheer ignorance, 23 people were piled into a Ford F-250 which went off the road Sunday on Route 59 southwest of Houston, Texas, smashing into a tree killing 13 and seriously injuring the other 10 on board. Where is the 24/7 nationwide media coverage, outrage and grief for these poor individuals and their grieving families? I hear the crickets chirping loudly because there was no gun involved in this tragedy.

A drone strike in Pakistan killed some people today.....

As for the rest of Europe, every time you guys have a big fight we have to pause our fridge-building apparatus and go sort things out... cuz we have the guns. :P

Troll... stopped reading right there. This reminds me of a story:

My buddy was telling me it was a bit predictable. I might go see it tomorrow depending on how funds look.

I'd leave the isle clear

Well well well Golden boy here was on a federal grant


Because I now have to worry about more gun laws because of this case, I want everybody on a grant or student loan to have their finances micromanaged because of this case.

Never know what some of these miscreants might be buying.

^ those streets were alot safer, until the allies invaded germany, then alot of gun deaths started happening.

Hey I like this idea!

It would mean that there is a reduced chance of being beat up for no reason and then charged with felony assault.
It would mean no tax revenuers waddling around looking to ticket you for anything.


What a moron. I grew up next to "his" city, where you cannot get a handgun without a $300 dollar permit and a special permission slip from the police chief, and forget about carrying it unless you are a cop, a celebrity, or a politician. I was raised in an environment where anybody who was bigger could decide to do whatever they wanted to you with extremely small chance of consequences, where most of the women I knew all had a "walk like a man mode" to keep from getting raeped if they had to walk home alone, where having a breakdown with your car on the Cross Bronx Expressway was comparable to a fighter pilot being shot down over enemy territory.

(where everybody acts "cosmopolitan" and "tolerant" yet they will pay a quarter million bucks at least for a 2BR no land house with a 10K/yr property tax out in Sayvile or East Islip and when they talk about it, you will hear "because the n**gers and s**cs can't get out this far" - bunch of hypocrits)


Yeah, that's Bloomberg's city.

But instead of getting health insurance, go to movie premiers?

I think this having a child is even more affordable!

Having children does cost an eye (no pun, seriously)

Even my mother says that.