IDBillzFan Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) 2012 Aurora shooting 12:38 a.m. – 12:45 a.m. 58 non-fatal gunshot wounds 12 deaths Not gonna happen without a semi-automatic weapon. Ever. Those are the facts that should matter most. The fact that matters the most is the simple fact that Holmes wanted to kill people that day, and if you took away all semi-automatic weapons, he'd have found another way. Possibly even a way that would have killed MORE people. There's your fact that matters most. Edited January 29, 2015 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) The fact that matters the most is the simple fact that Holmes wanted to kill people that day, and if you took away all semi-automatic weapons, he'd have found another way. Possibly even a way that would have killed MORE people. There's your fact that matters most. Makes no sense assuming people wont use the most efficient means available, nor that the means dont enable crimes. Just a convenient hypothetical to justify the irresponsible possession of incredibly destructive weapons that have no place in our society. Edited January 29, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Makes no sense assuming people wont use the most efficient means available, nor that the means dont enable crimes. Just a convenient hypothetical to justify the irresponsible possession of incredibly destructive weapons that have no place in our society. Aren't you the guy that thought a ..380 pistol with a laser sight was a "incredibly destructive weapon" that no one needs? Edit-sorry it was BFBF. But you two are interchangeable. Edited January 29, 2015 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 lol @ "founding fathers" ... it was an amendment. And even if it not so, what would they have said if theyd known weapons capable of such massive destruction would become available to the public? The fact that you don't understand the Constitution and how it came about is YOUR problem. You mean weapons like gasoline and fertilizer? Thomas Jefferson owned 2 Girardoni Air Rifles - he, and the rest of the Founding Fathers actually fought and lived war with their own weapons so they could be free. They understand the issue far better than any "progressive" I've ever heard/read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hammersticks Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 You do realize that a shotgun can be semi automatic and they sell magazines that hold 30 rounds right? The same shotgun that your article illustrates as half as powerful as an AR-15 because of muzzle velocity? I would take my chances against an AR-15 vs a Saiga shotgun at anything less than 50 yards. The Aurora shooting also happened in a "gun free zone". **Sorry to get off topic. The ignorant anti-AR15 "facts" always get me. Yes, but those are specially designed to kill the super animals. The electric eel, the bald eagle, and the flying squirrel...just to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Makes no sense assuming people wont use the most efficient means available, nor that the means dont enable crimes. Just a convenient hypothetical to justify the irresponsible possession of incredibly destructive weapons that have no place in our society. What makes no sense is the liberal ideology that criminals will suddenly start following laws because they've been passed. Drug prohibition working? How about making it illegal to rape kids? How successful was the government at making alcohol completely illegal? Any far reaching consequences to that law being passed? There's a reason criminals keep attacking places like schools and liberal "gun free zones." Use the six working brain cells you have to try and figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Makes no sense assuming people wont use the most efficient means available, nor that the means dont enable crimes. Just a convenient hypothetical to justify the irresponsible possession of incredibly destructive weapons that have no place in our society. Don't you mean it was the irresponsible use of a legal weapon by a person with clear mental issues hellbent on murdering people so he could be glorified by the media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) While I'm going to stop short of giving a recommendation, I will say that I've generally been satisfied with the entry level Smith and Wesson I bought a couple of years ago. Granted, a typical range trip for me is usually only 20-40 rounds, but I haven't had a bit of issue with mine and haven't missed the forward assist or dust cover which they deleted on the 'sport' model. For my usage, I don't have a need for anything 'better', and have been strongly considering a second as a spare. That being said, while I have no experience with them, the most common recommendation I've seen online is that, when in doubt, its hard to go wrong with the Colt 6920 that Walmart sells. I'd probably start my research there. I like my mini 14 but I have also read the Colt is the best AR to start with. All Mil spec and highest resale value. Edited January 30, 2015 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 The fact that matters the most is the simple fact that Holmes wanted to kill people that day, and if you took away all semi-automatic weapons, he'd have found another way. Possibly even a way that would have killed MORE people. You're right. Remember that also had his apartment booby-trapped with home-made napalm and other explosives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 You're right. Remember that also had his apartment booby-trapped with home-made napalm and other explosives. Wait...is that wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Wait...is that wrong? You don't live in an apartment, so it's okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 The fact that you don't understand the Constitution and how it came about is YOUR problem. You mean weapons like gasoline and fertilizer? Thomas Jefferson owned 2 Girardoni Air Rifles - he, and the rest of the Founding Fathers actually fought and lived war with their own weapons so they could be free. They understand the issue far better than any "progressive" I've ever heard/read. funny you mention jefferson, he said the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years so as not to burden future generations with archaic laws. you can bet that gun laws when rifles took a minute to reload and were only accurate to about 75 yards, versus assault weapons that can fire 800 rounds/minute with a range up to 600 yards, would prompt a revisit of the 2nd amendment. you idiot, wtf is wrong with you?!!?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 funny you mention jefferson, he said the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years so as not to burden future generations with archaic laws. you can bet that gun laws when rifles took a minute to reload and were only accurate to about 75 yards, versus assault weapons that can fire 800 rounds/minute with a range up to 600 yards, would prompt a revisit of the 2nd amendment. you idiot, wtf is wrong with you?!!?!! Did Jefferson get his way? Hush... We are still entitled to those archaic laws! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 funny you mention jefferson, he said the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years so as not to burden future generations with archaic laws. you can bet that gun laws when rifles took a minute to reload and were only accurate to about 75 yards, versus assault weapons that can fire 800 rounds/minute with a range up to 600 yards, would prompt a revisit of the 2nd amendment. you idiot, wtf is wrong with you?!!?!! Here's where this thread ventures into the deep, dark underworld of "strict construction" vs. "living, breathing document which should change over time". I'll sit back and watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Is this what PPP is like? Fascinating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 funny you mention jefferson, he said the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years so as not to burden future generations with archaic laws. you can bet that gun laws when rifles took a minute to reload and were only accurate to about 75 yards, versus assault weapons that can fire 800 rounds/minute with a range up to 600 yards, would prompt a revisit of the 2nd amendment. you idiot, wtf is wrong with you?!!?!! And the first should be "revisited" also. How, in a time when the most advanced form of communication was a printing press, could the writers have envisioned radio, TV, the internet or social media? Surly they could not have envisioned a time when a single net work executive could influence the opinon of millions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 funny you mention jefferson, he said the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years so as not to burden future generations with archaic laws. you can bet that gun laws when rifles took a minute to reload and were only accurate to about 75 yards, versus assault weapons that can fire 800 rounds/minute with a range up to 600 yards, would prompt a revisit of the 2nd amendment. you idiot, wtf is wrong with you?!!?!! 1. You have absolutely zero idea what an assault weapon is, regardless of whether that term is ridiculous or not (it is). 2. Jefferson said a lot of things. If he were alive today he would likely be leading the charge of revolution against our government because it is very much like the one the Founding Fathers went to war against. 3. "Assault weapons" are rarely used to commit crimes. 4. The Girandoni Air Rifle that was invented in the late 1700s could fire over 20 aimed rounds per minute. That's pretty much the same rate that a semi-automatic assault rifle can be aim fired. It was accurate to about 150 yards. But you keep spewing the "it took over a minute to reload" and "accurate to 600 yards" thing as if they're somehow relevant or honest. Let me know the next time someone uses an "assault rifle" to fire 800 rounds in a minute from 600 yards away, will you? Most cars are capable of being driven at double the posted speed limit and kill more people than firearms. Should we start banning them until the numbers are significantly lower? Maybe the maximum speed should be 30MPH so in the event of an accident, the likelihood of someone being significantly injured will decrease exponentially? At this point I'd almost be in favor of returning to the "Assault Weapons Ban" so the dumbasses among us will think something's been accomplished when the reality is (and was) the only thing that changed was the look and prices of the weapons. If liberals had kept their mouths shut about assault weapons, they wouldn't be even close to as prevalent today as they are. There are probably a number of things wrong with me. Let me start: 1. I don't suffer uninformed fools. 2. I'm not afraid of citizens owning firearms - including assault weapons. 3. I don't let the media or politicians "think" for me. 4. I don't think Prohibitive Laws involving "things" will keep criminals from committing crimes but will increase the likelihood, level of violence, and rate at which crimes will be committed. 5. I'm far more concerned about why you're literally 100s of times more likely to die from visiting a hospital and suffering preventable harm that causes your death than being murdered by an "assault rifle". https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/781687-john-james-a-new-evidence-based-estimate-of.html#document/p1/a117333 The list is endless. I'd say feel free to add to it but: 6. I don't care about other people's opinion of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 funny you mention jefferson, he said the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years so as not to burden future generations with archaic laws. you can bet that gun laws when rifles took a minute to reload and were only accurate to about 75 yards, versus assault weapons that can fire 800 rounds/minute with a range up to 600 yards, would prompt a revisit of the 2nd amendment. you idiot, wtf is wrong with you?!!?!! On the contrary, there were repeating rifles in existence at least 100 years before the Revolutionary war. The Kalthoff and Lorenzoni designs were basically primitive lever actions that allowed their user to fire a shot every second or two. Both of these were invented in the 1600s, and while not widespread due to cost, enough were built that there are surviving examples today. Can't say for sure, but I would expect that the founders were aware of them. As for 800 rounds per minute from a semi-automatic, I have my doubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 The fact that matters the most is the simple fact that Holmes wanted to kill people that day, and if you took away all semi-automatic weapons, he'd have found another way. Possibly even a way that would have killed MORE people. There's your fact that matters most. Well at least you're not speculating. I agree that we're not going to stop bad people from doing bad things through gun control. I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment. I just think there needs to be some changes made. I don't think everything that is in the SAFE Act is bad. I do, however, think it was bullschit how Cuomo back-doored it. All I would like to see someday are reliable measures that will a) make it difficult for civilians to acquire any weapons and b) identify people who should never own them. I don't see how everyone in the U.S. would not want those two things. I'm not saying for police to go remove anything from anybody, so the Don't Tread on Me people can stand down. There are two extremes, the people who want no guns anywhere and the NRA. Surely, there are brilliant minds who can meet in the middle and come up with some sort of reform that preserves the 2nd Amendment but also protects (as much as possible) society as a whole. I admit, I posted the Seattle Times story in a dickish way. I do have a problem with semi-automatic weapons being available to the masses. But I'm not extreme; I don't think they should be banned. There's got to be a happy medium. People need to think practically. Surely, no one can expect a document written 250 ago to remain relevant in its entirety. Everyone should - in my opinion - want to keep the good guys safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Is this what PPP is like? Fascinating! Not really. JSTP is not in a fetal position yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts