Midnight in Aurora, a mass shooting occurred during the screening of the Dark Knight

[DarkDragon]

Living in the murder capital of the US,

Detroit ?

[sketch]

All of you folks who think the right to bare arms in the U.S. has anything to do with hunting, please read some of the Federalist papers. That right has always been about opposing unjust government.

The right to bear arms and the desire to bear arms are two different things. Most people in favor of loose or no gun controls cite reasons like self defense, hunting, and sport shooting. The right to protect yourself against an unjust government is not usually a big one, probably because it makes you sound even more paranoid.

In all likelihood, the 2nd Amendment was put in place to make people feel more secure about their fledgling government in case it went south. Most people in America today consider the 2nd Amendment a blanket right for common citizens to own guns and fill in their own justification as to the necessity of that right.

If you really need a gun to protect yourself against the government, you might as well put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. If the military goes rogue, for example, a bunch of armed citizens is not going to be able to stand up to the US military.

[Tanegashima]

I agree with you about the arbitrary nature of gun control. The people making the laws likely known very little about guns, and don't even seem to have much common sense.

As for the hollow points, they seem especially vicious to me (i.e. designed to break up inside your target), but a lot of what should and shouldn't be regulated is open to debate. I think some things, like automatic weapons, are a no brainer. Limiting the caliber of weapons and some of the more lethal ammunition seems like a good idea to me.

Personally, I wish they'd outlaw semiautomatic weapons. Any legitimate use of a gun (hunting, sport shooting, self defense) that most Americans seem to desire do not call for semiautomatic weaponry, and limiting the speed at which you can fire a gun would be a good way of reducing deaths in rampages. I remember firing a semiautomatic shotgun years ago and being stunned by the amount of damage I would be able to do with it. I don't think this will ever happen, but an effort to make sensible, enforceable, consistent gun laws would be nice, even if it meant making some concessions on both sides of the issue. Instead, we seem to have a gun culture in the US where no one is really interested in controlling guns at all.

That's just what I'm talking about though, hollow points don't "break up" inside of your body, they're meant to expand and stop inside a target not break up. Hollowpoints don't explode or do anything of the sort, they just expand a little bit to ensure that no energy is lost.

I think you're a little off when it comes to semi-automatic weapons, they really aren't all that "fast" especially compared to fully automatic weapons. They have their place in hunting and sport shooting and self defense. If you want to shoot competition shotgun sports for instance and you can't afford an expensive Over/Under then you're pretty much limited to Semi Automatic shotguns if you want a quality reliable gun.

One of the reasons hunters like semi-automatic rifles is because in high-powered rifles the action softens the recoil in some cases, dramatically, and makes the guns far more comfortable to shoot they also allow a hunter to stay on target without having to move off the sights to operate the action.

Semi-automatic handguns are far less expensive than revolvers and far more common. Only a handful of manufacturers even make revolvers anymore because of how costly they are to produce. Semi automatic handguns are no "faster" than revolvers, their only true advantage is how much ammunition they can hold (which can be limited by law if one so desires).
I'm quick to add that all of the world pistol speed shooting records that stand today were all won with revolvers...

[JCU]

I did support my position if you read my post. To sum it up, society is more dangerous with deadly weapons in it. Realizing we likely cannot successfully abolish all weapons, and realizing American's feel that they have a right to have a firearm, it makes sense to limit the types of weapons that can be owned so that when some numb nut does go crazy, he can't do untold damage.

You didn't support your position with anything but assumption. Society will be safer? Based on isolated incidents? You should become familiar with the amount of firearm owners in the country compared to how many went ape-shit and killed with them (yesterday for example).

Just because a law abiding citizen won't misuse something doesn't mean it should be made legal to the public. Explosives are not available to the general public because even though they are safe in the right hands, having them readily available would no doubt lead to death from A) incompetence and B) malice. Same reasoning for banning or limiting weapons and ammo that are too dangerous (automatic weapons, hollow point bullets, bullets designed to pierce bullet proof vests, weapons above a certain caliber, etc.).

Comparing explosives with firearms? Many of those who are frightened by firearms don't fathom how other less "scary" firearms are even more deadly then these so-called "assault" rifles. A 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buck can mow people down like falling dominoes yet that is a perfectly acceptable weapon which one can own. I'm beginning to think a few contributors here don't understand the concept of a semi-auto rifle. It isn't something out of G.I. Joe nor something you see in the movies. That's the big issue here. Some of the more "acceptable" firearms can put the big "scary" "assault" weapons to shame. No ban call though.

Tell me what caliber you'd draw the line at. Something with a .30 cal head? Perhaps a .28 cal head? And now hollow points are too dangerous. Hmmm. Clearly you don't even understand what hey are. I'm reminded of the fools who went into panic mode when Winchester sold its "Black Talon" line. The sheer amount of ignorance surrounding this line was laughable and it seems the same ignorance is alive and well when it comes to firearms.

The rationale I see being provided for being able to own any kind of weapon is because it's wanted and desirable. Why else own an automatic weapon, for example? Again, it's a part of American sense of entitlement.

Entitlement is expecting something be provided for you. Not everyone believes ANY weapon (notice I didn't say firearm) should be owned.

[sheath]

The right to bear arms and the desire to bear arms are two different things. Most people in favor of loose or no gun controls cite reasons like self defense, hunting, and sport shooting. The right to protect yourself against an unjust government is not usually a big one, probably because it makes you sound even more paranoid.

In all likelihood, the 2nd Amendment was put in place to make people feel more secure about their fledgling government in case it went south. Most people in America today consider the 2nd Amendment a blanket right for common citizens to own guns and fill in their own justification as to the necessity of that right.

If you really need a gun to protect yourself against the government, you might as well put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. If the military goes rogue, for example, a bunch of armed citizens is not going to be able to stand up to the US military.

The bill of rights was added because many States weren't going to ratify the constitution without it, and the original bill of rights is 100% about what the British government and especially the British Army had just done to everybody prior to the war. Before that the average American colonist thought the Magna Carta was the second greatest document known to man.

[QuickSciFi]

All of you folks who think the right to bare arms in the U.S. has anything to do with hunting, please read some of the Federalist papers. That right has always been about opposing unjust government.

yup

[Da_Shocker]

Instead of saying "because there is no reason to own certain firearms..." SUPPORT your position.

Knives, automobiles, liquid propane canisters, etc.., all can be harmful IF they are used in an improper manner. Properly used, none of what I mentioned is harmful to people. In the wrong hands anything can be considered dangerous.

So can a PS3 I can bash somebody skull open with that. But just about all of those things have a primary purposes that isn't suppose to harm people. Guns on the other hand were created with one thing in mind and you know what that is.

[JCU]

Are you asking if you can use a PS3 to bash in someone's skull? You can crack a skull with a frozen roast.

Something's intended use is different (more often then not) then what it is actually used for.

Not every firearm was produced with killing in mind (i.e. target, skeet, etc..,)

[sheath]

Well now, the PS3 is evil. I think it should be banned.

[Pulstar]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...fareed-zakaria

Massive Fail in political discourse.

[VGTM]

The only reason I don't regret seeing the Amazing Spider-Man instead. Other than that, it was a waste of time and money. EDIT: Actually, The Dark Knight Rises still would have been a better choice.

[snume]

I live in Canada so we have a lot less violent crimes committed with guns but by no means are they non-existent. I don't think necessarily more gun control will solve the problem but I would think that having less automatic weaponry available to the general public would cut down on the number of people killed during a given incident. Less bullets per clip + slower reload time would theoretically allow more people to escape. But I don't have the answer.

What I was wondering was what the users on here thought about the young men who sacrificed themselves shielding their girlfriends during the shooting being called suckers? I don't know what I'd do if it were me in the situation, but I'd like to think I would put others before myself and I definitely don't think any less of these brave young men or even of those who got out of there as fast as they could.

[Pulstar]

What I was wondering was what the users on here thought about the young men who sacrificed themselves shielding their girlfriends during the shooting being called suckers? I don't know what I'd do if it were me in the situation, but I'd like to think I would put others before myself and I definitely don't think any less of these brave young men or even of those who got out of there as fast as they could.

The problem is with society. Destroy society and all is golden.

[JCU]

I live in Canada so we have a lot less violent crimes committed with guns but by no means are they non-existent. I don't think necessarily more gun control will solve the problem but I would think that having less automatic weaponry available to the general public would cut down on the number of people killed during a given incident. Less bullets per clip + slower reload time would theoretically allow more people to escape. But I don't have the answer.

You make it sound as if automatic firearms are common place. You do know you can purchase aftermarket, high capacity magazines for plenty of firearms besides something fully automatic, yes? it is not as simple as your "theory" suggests. Can you imagine how much damage you could inflict with an 835 Utility Mag (plug removed) loaded with buckshot or even 3.5" mags? That's a turkey gun if you didn't know.

Unfortunately what we are seeing now is the typical knee-jerk reaction from the Liberals and Democrats. These clowns always fail to realize criminals will not follow the law. Ban semi-auto firearms, 15 capacity mags, etc.., and they will still find a way to get what they want. What the hell goes on in the minds of these people that makes them believe criminals will magically decide to follow the law?

[Pulstar]

Unfortunately what we are seeing now is the typical knee-jerk reaction from the Liberals and Democrats. These clowns always fail to realize criminals will not follow the law. Ban semi-auto firearms, 15 capacity mags, etc.., and they will still find a way to get what they want. What the hell goes on in the minds of these people that makes them believe criminals will magically decide to follow the law?

News flash dickface: America doesn't have liberals.