No, but if it makes it harder, I'm all for it. I just know that you are smarter then these fools who say that the MORE guns on the street...... the SAFER we'll be! As a father of 2 young children and somebody who has dealt with these weapons....... I STRONGLY disagree!
if he was poisoning sodas at the panda express 100 people would be dead right now this game is no fun the dude killed 2 people
You might be able to make the argument that guns don't play a significant role in our every day lives like cars do, but knives certainly would fall under that category. Who has outlawed guns? England. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/23/knife-crime-statistics Or how about this one Knives now kill six a week http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ople-are-killed-by-knife-crime-each-week.html Latest figures show a shocking 332 fatalities in a year — the worst toll since records began. BAN KNIVES!!!!!
I don't get the argument that if someone had a gun to counter it, things would've been better (paraphrase). Well, if this nut job didn't have access to an assault rifle, or semi automatic gun, people would be alive. More guns won't stop this shit from happening. How many times has that actually happened? I don't secretly know that #, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's very small. Bottom line, what the hell do people not in the police or military need assault rifles/semi automatic guns? Other than killing people what good are those guns? for hunting? Self defense (no)?
Not to rain on your parade, but the fact that he had an assault rifle in this instance actually saved lives. He only shot three people (four if you include himself) because his gun jammed. A bolt action rifle would not have jammed so he could have easily killed more people. Bolt actions can have magazines as well. Hell, a lever action can hold six or seven shots and is easily reloadable. People like to lean on the "OMG ban assault rifles" but I could have easily done just as much damage (probably more actually) with a non-semi auto rifle. That gun jamming saved lives.
Agreed. But gun laws wouldn't have taken that out of his hands. There are a lot of guns unaccounted for out there. Most would be in the hands of those who are irresponsible.
yeah, cept for the 2 people who he killed. ok, if you want to pull that (lame) rationale, how about we actually make it so they make it difficult for people to get guns that aren't necessary? as in, why the fuck would someone who is sane and normal, buy a semi automatic gun? Be a gun owner, fine. But seriously, what do you need a semi automatic gun for? Because that deer just needs an extra 20 holes?
not everyone shares your blind trust in the military and the police id much rather there were no guns in this world, but if they have them, so will i
bringing back the assault weapon ban is one to biggest blunders that the right wingers argue against. Yeah, because it's so needed to have an assault rifle.
I have some samurai swords that are centuries old. Personally, I'd hate to taint mine with anything less than the blood of a worthy opponent. Skanks and d-bags at Crackamas Town Center fall far short.
if i criminal has an assault rifle, trust me, you are gonna want an assault rifle a handgun or a shotgun just isnt going to get it done 9/10 times
Believe me - weapons like an AR-15 serve one purpose: to kill people. I'm all for limiting access to guns. I'm just saying a ban isn't going to eliminate these types of events. Don't misunderstand me. I'm terrified of guns.
But you're arguing against assault rifles, and in this case you could just as easily kill two or three people with any other gun. I'm just saying, in this case the gun jammed because it was a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle. He had no idea how to clear the weapon and ended up doing much less damage than he could have. Semi-automatic covers a wide field of weapons. Most handguns are semi-auto. Some shotguns are semi-auto. It just means that the gun reloads itself. You don't have to physically rack the bolt every time you want to reload. Many hunting rifles are semi-auto, and I'm not talking about AR-15s. I believe you are talking mostly about guns that have the ability to hold high capacity magazines. ARs, AKs, etc. The thing is, the only reason why those guns have a certain stigma is because they replicate the look of weapons that are used by the military. There are plenty of guns that are just as bad and actually more dangerous but look like your average, everyday, run of the mill hunting rifle. I have a Remington 30-06 hunting rifle. It was my grandfathers. The gun is over 60 years old. The bullets are significantly more expensive and cause much more damage to flesh than a .223 round that an AR15 uses. Most AR15 rounds are not hollowpoint, so they would go straight through whatever they make contact with. Most 30-06 rounds are hollow points, which means they shred whatever they come in contact with. So my point is, you are saying that "assault rifles" should be banned, but which would you rather be shot with?
