3!

rounds in the mag should be the most allowed. give or take a hundred

1/25/2013 6:01:50 PM

^^You are adorable. (JeffreyBSG)

[Edited on January 25, 2013 at 6:02 PM. Reason : ]

1/25/2013 6:02:07 PM

yeah, lol at JeffreyBSG for thinking laws affect thugs

1/25/2013 6:04:10 PM

ah, yes this is the chit-chat version of the thread. I shouldn't expect any sort of intelligent response, just snide little one-sentence derogations of any opinions posted in a serious spirit.

I should have thought more carefully before I posted my honest douchey opinion ITT.


[Edited on January 25, 2013 at 7:07 PM. Reason : tge]

1/25/2013 6:38:22 PM

lol

based on the responses to my comments, I guess we can tell who the gun owners are


wdprice is the only one that deserves a gun, cause he's the fucking Texas rattlesnake

1/25/2013 6:44:04 PM

^^so lets say we repeal the 2nd amendment and everyone has to turn in all their guns to the gubberment. there are 300 million or so guns, if 2/3 of them are surrendered that still leaves 100 million for the thugs to terrorize the public with. and now the good guys cant shoot back. how the fuck is that better

1/25/2013 7:31:20 PM

hey Bubs can you post some huge font shit about gun owners on this page

they hate that shit

[Edited on January 25, 2013 at 7:33 PM. Reason : ^ you make possession of a gun a felony]

1/25/2013 7:32:13 PM

Quote :

"^ you make possession of a gun a felony"

point?

[Edited on January 25, 2013 at 7:40 PM. Reason : i mean damn, i thought shooting people was a felony too but shit that happens on the regular]

1/25/2013 7:36:53 PM

Is it just me or does anyone else notice it's the annoying fucks that don't like guns ?

" I annoy the shit out of people until they want to lash out in a violent rage. Please to not let them kill me"

1/25/2013 7:42:09 PM

^^^^
we don't just say "All right, everybody turn in your guns!" and then collect them from people helpful enough to do so...that would be foolish

rather, we regulate gun-ownership much more stringently, and within a decade or two there are far fewer guns out there, both in the hands of criminals and in those of private noncriminals

I did not mean, in my page 2 post, to suggest that we should try to abolish private gun-ownership all at once, although I can see how, reading it, one could conceivably think that I was a complete moron and that was actually my opinion. I was speaking broadly...my point (and a rather obvious one I think, but one which most gun enthusiasts do not seem to accept the validity of) was that making guns readily available to everyone, even though it does give honest citizens such as paerabol a means of protecting themselves, probably kills many more people than it saves.

^ I don't think I'll argue with that, actually; there is probably a definite correlation between being a douchebag and being vocally opposed to guns.


[Edited on January 25, 2013 at 8:28 PM. Reason : jlkfgw]

1/25/2013 8:15:13 PM

pet owners bother me way more than legal gun owners

1/25/2013 8:31:57 PM

solution to gun problem.. trade guns in for a guard tiger... fun to play with and can protect the house

[Edited on January 25, 2013 at 8:41 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2013 8:40:28 PM

Quote :

"we don't just say "All right, everybody turn in your guns!" and then collect them from people helpful enough to do so...that would be foolish rather, we regulate gun-ownership much more stringently, and within a decade or two there are far fewer guns out there, both in the hands of criminals and in those of private noncriminals"

huh? so how do you get the 300 million guns off the street if you dont force people to turn them in? holding hands and singing kumbaya will not be very effective me thinks

[Edited on January 25, 2013 at 9:15 PM. Reason : felons cant own guns now btw]

1/25/2013 9:14:06 PM

1 word. Tigers

1/25/2013 9:14:40 PM

come and take 'em

1/25/2013 9:15:32 PM

Democrats probably cant get this through their own Senate.

1/25/2013 9:21:00 PM

clinton just warned them about the backlash a few days ago

1/25/2013 9:22:17 PM

i bet statistically tigers are safer and more effective than guns. How many breakins do you hear about at the zoo? Suicide by tiger? I think i am on to something

1/25/2013 9:30:52 PM

Or you could use a realistic example, like Pit Bulls, and then remember the problems inherent with that as well.

1/25/2013 9:35:13 PM

1/25/2013 9:37:16 PM

tomorrow will be a good day to load some ammo. i'll probably crank out 1000 or so.

1/25/2013 9:41:28 PM

^for some reason that scares me :3

1/25/2013 9:53:26 PM

What are you going to do tomorrow besides turn food into shit?

1/25/2013 9:57:29 PM

turn beer into piss

1/25/2013 9:58:30 PM

The Walking Dead has me wanting to buy a lot of guns

1/26/2013 2:15:39 AM

Impact to responsible gun owners is a necessary and acceptable side effect of the effort to reduce gun violence. These responsible gun owners feed and maintain a secondary and tertiary source of guns for criminals - private sales and burglary of poorly secured weapons. The only way to effectively reduce access to guns by criminals is to reduce their availability overall. Despite frequent claims to the contrary by supporters of this nation's gun culture, reducing the overall number of guns will make it harder for criminals to obtain them.

1/30/2013 12:58:32 PM

I agree with you there. How do you propose that's done? (that's probably where I'll disagree)

1/30/2013 1:02:05 PM

So as the NRA testifies in front of congress today, another story emerges about a high school student who played for the inauguration was recently gunned down in Chicago while seeking shelter from the rain.

I suppose the NRA would contend that this 17 year old should have had a pistol to protect herself.

1/30/2013 1:03:56 PM

NRA pls

1/30/2013 1:27:55 PM

^^ But handguns and most other guns are banned in Chicago. This is impossible.

1/30/2013 1:40:06 PM

^^^^ but will have negligible impacts on violent crime, at best. People will just find different ways to kill each other. People already get stabbed out there every day. People have destroyed entire buildings with cow manure and gasoline. Marvin Heemeyer outfitted a bull dozer with a concrete and steel shell and went on a 7 million dollar destructive rampage. In his case, the only person he ended up killing was himself, but that's not the point.

Taking guns away from people is not going to solve the problem that people are violent.

1/30/2013 1:42:50 PM

^that's such a lame arugment. guns make it much, much easier to kill. they're made to kill. that's why soldiers are given guns. that's why when a kid wants to go on a massacre, he doesn't choose a knife or a bat. that's why on the same day as sandy hook, some chinese guy went on a massacre with a knife, and 30 people were injured, but none were killed. guns make it easier to kill. guns make impulse killing much easier. guns are designed to kill, that's their primary funcction.

i'm not for banning guns, i just don't understand how anyone can make the lame argument that preventing criminals and mentally disturbed people from getting guns would not help prevent most school massacres, the amount of impulse killings, impulse suicides, etc. etc. etc.

[Edited on January 30, 2013 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2013 1:48:13 PM

Look at violent crime rates in the countries people always espouse as being so much safer for having stricter gun control laws. UK is "get knifed country."

Your entire post begins with a incorrect assessment of what guns are. Guns are for hunting. Guns are for recreation. Guns are for protection. Guns do kill people, but you're not making a distinction between the people guns should kill and the people guns shouldn't kill.

Guns make it easier to kill people from farther away, but you can kill any number of people with any number of weapons. At the end of the day, getting rid of guns doesn't necessarily make anyone safer, just less likely to get shot.

1/30/2013 1:51:49 PM

Quote :

" But handguns and most other guns are banned in Chicago. This is impossible."

So....a crime committed by a handgun that is most likely not legal to possess.

Not arguing one way or another, but that kind of lends strength to the idea that reducing the number of guns anywhere would reduce the number of gun related crimes everywhere.

1/30/2013 1:53:37 PM

^^you said "people will find other ways to kill each other". Guns make it much, much easier to "kill". Especially kill numerous people in massacres. There's really no debating it. I guarantte that Sandy Hook or Columbine or Aurora theatre wouldn't have been nearly as deadly if the shooter went in there with a knife instead or a crowbar.

[Edited on January 30, 2013 at 1:58 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2013 1:55:22 PM

It lends credence to the idea that in a place where owning guns is not allowed, people who are more likely to do illegal things with guns are the people more likely to have them.

1/30/2013 1:56:32 PM

Quote :

"Not arguing one way or another, but that kind of lends strength to the idea that reducing the number of guns anywhere would reduce the number of gun related crimes everywhere."

do you think criminals are just going to give up their guns?

[Edited on January 30, 2013 at 1:57 PM. Reason : qu]

1/30/2013 1:56:44 PM

^^^ Tell that to any explosives maker. You think taking guns away will stop the next school massacre? It'll only make some kid lock a bunch of students in a cafeteria and set off some pipe bombs instead of using bullets.


Those kids at columbine used an explosive device on the kids in the cafeteria, did they not?

1/30/2013 1:58:20 PM

Quote :

"It'll only make some kid lock a bunch of students in a cafeteria and set off some pipe bombs instead of using bullets."

Then why doesn't this happen as often as shooting massacres? Because it's much easier and effective to use a gun.

1/30/2013 1:59:29 PM

It's much easier right now, sure. But it's not more effective, per se.

That question is really beside the point though. If you make it exceedingly difficult to get a gun, people will start using other methods (like explosives).

1/30/2013 2:00:22 PM

Sure, some will. But if it's not as easy, (and explosive aren't as easy as simply pulling a trigger), then less people will go through the trouble. Some still will, but I'd have to think that less would. How many explosive massacres happen in the UK? Do they compare to the US's shooting massacres?

1/30/2013 2:04:01 PM

Quote :

"do you think criminals are just going to give up their guns?"

Never said that. Never even came close to saying that. You have to be intentionally obtuse to not realize fewer guns means fewer stolen guns (often used in crimes).

Go kick rocks in flip flops, Thx.

1/30/2013 2:05:04 PM

Quote :

"You have to be intentionally obtuse to not realize fewer guns means fewer stolen guns (often used in crimes)."

This seems to be overlooked in all the debates.

[Edited on January 30, 2013 at 2:21 PM. Reason : probably because police and researchers can't research where the guns came from..]

1/30/2013 2:20:07 PM

So you admit, then, that's a bullshit argument because you made it up with your gut feelings instead of actual information?

1/30/2013 2:40:50 PM

are you talking to me? no, i still think your argument is bullshit from your gut not based on any actual information. again, how many explosive massacres occur in your example of england? how do they compare to the US's gun massacres?

1/30/2013 2:43:15 PM

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to ^^^ but WOW what an obvious attempt at obfuscating a point in the name of rabbling.

No, I have no idea if explosions are more prevalent in the UK where people can't get guns. I do know that stabbings are, which goes to the point that I've been trying to make that banning guns doesn't make you safer, it'll only makes you feel safer because of your misguided bias against guns.

[Edited on January 30, 2013 at 2:55 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2013 2:54:58 PM

How many strong arm street crimes that occur happen when the criminal is armed with explosives?

1/30/2013 2:57:15 PM

Usually the criminal straps a victim with explosives, otherwise the endgame is obviously bad for the criminal as well.

At least that's how it works in the movies.

1/30/2013 2:59:43 PM

^^^I don't have a total bias against guns. I have a few guns. I might get more.

I just think the arguments like "if people didn't have guns, they'd kill people other ways". and "cars kill people, ban cars!" and "if you ban guns, people are start going on killing sprees with explosives and knives" are totally lame. I feel that less guns on the street and limiting the availability of guns tocriminals and mentally unstable people would prevent some killings, especially massacres and impulese killings. I think that's obvious.

But sorry for thinking you were responding to me.


[Edited on January 30, 2013 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2013 3:00:09 PM

fewer guns means fewer stolen guns but means higher criminal possessing gun to upstanding citizen owning gun ratio.

I dunno...

I just hate that people who don't participate in a hobby demonize it and want it outlawed.

I TRUELY believe that crime would go down (and has gone down in texas) if the texas law of "trespassers can be shot on site" and the belief that a person has the right to protect themselves and their property.



[Edited on January 30, 2013 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2013 3:02:59 PM