277 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

FLOMBIE, on 21 July 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

The difference is: Cars were not designed to kill people, guns were.

I meant that your military would protect you, but not armed civilists. By the way, would you have won the war of independence without your highly trained military allies?

I used to live in the states, and at least for that time those rights were affecting me the same ways they do you.


I'd like to see a neutral source, no pro or anti gun site.

And where were those "highly trained military allies" during the pivotal Battle of King's Mountain? That's right, nowhere in sight. And yes, I believe we'd have still won. Most of my ancestors have been here since the 1600's and knew the land well.

cormac

[CRYSiiSx2]

ZaraKitty, on 21 July 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

If they had no guns, you wouldn't need guns is my point.

You are simple minded and have absolutely ZERO common sense.  You honestly asked me, what do I need guns for?  Haven't I told you NUMEROUS times why I love and use them?  Ah but I did just check your profile and found you are just 19 and think you know everything still.  Probably haven't even moved out of the parents yet.

Throughout history do you know what type of leaders never want their citizens to defend themselves?  Dictators.

I'm done even replying to your half brained comments and ridiculous thoughts.  Keep yourself in Australia, I'm just glad you have no power to vote here in my country.

[CRYSiiSx2]

Oh and FLOMBIE.

Why do you think Hitler made it illegal for Jews to own firearms before he slaughtered millions of them?  For everyone who says, "why didn't they fight back?".  Hmm... THEY COULDN'T.

[FLOMBIE]

What does Hitler have to do with this? Cool down, bro. You might also want to appologise to ZaraKitty.

Well, some did fight back, some fled, and most thought it's not going to last long anyway, since they were German citizens and feeling German. Guns would have helped them very little, if they had to defend against an SS squadron. Hitler just made it easier for his butchers.

sktm06, on 21 July 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

(...)
Throughout history do you know what type of leaders never want their citizens to defend themselves?  Dictators.
(...)

In which democracy, besides the US, do the citizens have a constitutional right to own a gun? Saddam Hussein had all Iraqi families armed.

Edited by FLOMBIE, 21 July 2012 - 04:56 PM.

[Little Fish]

[The New Richard Nixon]

ZaraKitty, on 21 July 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

If they had no guns, you wouldn't need guns is my point.

But then you go back to bows and arrows and slingshots or throwing axes

[The New Richard Nixon]

Little Fish, on 21 July 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Those were Rednecks fault, they do that to any one with someone who has a nice car

[CRYSiiSx2]

FLOMBIE, on 21 July 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

What does Hitler have to do with this? Cool down, bro. You might also want to appologise to ZaraKitty.

Well, some did fight back, some fled, and most thought it's not going to last long anyway, since they were German citizens and feeling German. Guns would have helped them very little, if they had to defend against an SS squadron. Hitler just made it easier for his butchers.


In which democracy, besides the US, do the citizens have a constitutional right to own a gun? Saddam Hussein had all Iraqi families armed.

I was explaining that the Jews never had a chance to defend themselves because their right to bear arms was taken away.  Would they have stood a chance?  Not against what Hitler had, no.  But at least they would have had the choice to fight.

People want us to cool down and not get heated over this.  While you guys voice your opinions from Berlin and Australia, it's only effecting us.  I'm the one who wouldn't be able to go on hunting trips with my family and friends.  Not any of you.  We are raised to be proud of our ancestors who fought and gave their lives to defend our rights.  It's who we are and what we came from.  Maybe it wouldn't effect all Americans as it would myself.  But I don't care who it is, even our own President, nobody will be removing or modifying our 2nd Amendment.  And nobody ever will.  They can raise our taxes, we'll b****.

What you people don't understand is, anything can be used as a weapon.  If someone wants to kill multiple people without a gun, well, they could easily take a Escalade out and run people over.  There is plenty of legal everyday materials that could be used to build bombs.

Yes, there will always be morons who misuse property to harm others.  But guns are just the same as those mentioned.  Property.

Edited by sktm06, 21 July 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[Czero 101]

sktm06, on 21 July 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

People want us to cool down and not get heated over this.  

No... actually I think its just YOU that Flombie was referring to.

You admitted before to overreacting. You'd think that knowing you have a tendency to do that, you'd try and be a bit more rational in your approach.







Cz

[CRYSiiSx2]

Czero 101, on 21 July 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

No... actually I think its just YOU that Flombie was referring to.

You do know this isn't the only place that this is being discussed right?

[Michelle]

Little Fish, on 21 July 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Excellent video and a good example of a responsible gun owner. Those two idiots in the truck had worked themselves into a frenzy and there is no telling what they would have done.

I love that it's all on tape.

[Czero 101]

sktm06, on 21 July 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

You do know this isn't the only place that this is being discussed right?

Yep... I'm quite aware of that.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Flombie, but in the context of his post that you were replying to, he was specifically telling you to cool down, imo.

Does the fact that a topic is being discussed elsewhere give you the right to post like an a** here...?






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 21 July 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[Little Fish]

Michelle, on 21 July 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

Excellent video and a good example of a responsible gun owner. Those two idiots in the truck had worked themselves into a frenzy and there is no telling what they would have done.

it's safe to say, at the least, that the car would have been severely damaged and the woman terrorized.

this cinema shooting could have been curtailed if just one person in the cinema had been armed. I understand that some of the victims were military vets, capable and likely responsible enough to have taken down the shooter without need of the "state" to handle the situation -  I remember previous incidents where the "authorities" sat back for hours preparing while the shooter went on his rampage. if people were armed these incidents would be taken care of quickly and efficiently. gun control is all about disarming the people to empower the state. during the London riots I remember the government tried to stop amazon selling baseball bats. I feel most of these incidents are staged at some level for political purposes. when the US gives up its gun rights  the fun is really going to start -don't give up those rights!

Edited by Little Fish, 21 July 2012 - 06:20 PM.

[Michelle]

Little Fish, on 21 July 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

it's safe to say, at the least, that the car would have been severely damaged and the woman terrorized.

I think it would have ended up very badly with both of the victims severely injured.

In the beginning they were making threats about the car...towards the end they were threatening the man. "He's gonna wish he was dead by the time we get through with him."

This is a perfect example of road rage. I have a couple of friends that are hotheads, when they get behind the wheel, and I keep trying to tell them they don't know who they are messing with. I can't wait to show them this.

[Czero 101]

Little Fish, on 21 July 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

this cinema shooting could have been curtailed if just one person in the cinema had been armed. I understand that some of the victims were military vets, capable and likely responsible enough to have taken down the shooter without need of the "state" to handle the situation

Holmes was in full body armor.

Quote

Holmes was wearing "full ballistic gear," including a helmet, vest, throat protector, gas mask and black tactical gloves, {Aurora Police Chief Dan} Oates said.

[SOURCE]

Quote

He "was dressed all in black, he was wearing a ballistic helmet, a tactical ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector and a groin protector and a gas mask, and black tactical gloves," said Mr. Oates, the police chief.

[SOURCE]

How many people carry the kind of firepower necessary to get through all that with them, and how many more casualties would likely to have been from well-intentioned, but either poorly timed, poorly aimed - or both - "return fire"?

The following article from TheAtlantic.com gives an interesting perspective on the point you've brought up:

Quote

I don't have too much to say about yesterday's events, except to note that the victims are very much in my thoughts, and in my heart.

Reading through the Times coverage this morning, however, I caught this:

Quote

...

Luke O'Dell of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Colorado group on the other side of the debate over gun control, took a nearly opposite view. "Potentially, if there had been a law-abiding citizen who had been able to carry in the theater, it's possible the death toll would have been less." Some survivors thought at first they were witnessing a promotional stunt.

...

...

But there's something fantastical about O'Dell's argument, when you carry it out. It's worth considering the wisdom of waging a shoot-out in a crowded theater with a mad-man in body-armor. More than that, we should consider the import of the the argument's implication--a fully, and heavily, armed citizenry. If we all are going to agree to be armed, surely I don't want my arms to be inferior to the arms of my potential adversaries--a category including virtually any other citizen. The Aurora shooter was evidently in full body-armor. I need to upgrade to hand-grenades. And so we arrive at a kind of personal arms race,

And we arrive at a world with minimal trust in the state's ability to deploy violence on our behalf--a distrust of the authorities whom we pay to protect us, a cynicism which says those authorities are beyond reform, and that only through this personal arms race, can a person sleep at night.

And too we are left with the deeply held belief that, somehow, we can always outgun those who would do us harm, or at least our end can come at the place of our choosing.  Now we are cousined to immortality. Now we are chin-level with our various Gods.

It's worth considering what we mean by a safer society, and whether it can be secured through a cold war of all against all. It's worth asking if the world really needs more George Zimmermans.

I'll reiterate a point I made yesterday in this thread:

Czero 101, on 20 July 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

However, if it had been harder for him to get is hands on the AR-15, .40 cal Glock pistol(s) and the Remington 12-guage (and / or the ammo for those weapons) that were recovered at the scene[SOURCE], then maybe the 12 - 15 people (reports are still varying) he killed last night might still be alive this afternoon, and maybe he would have found some other way - hopefully non-violent - of dealing with whatever potential issues he was dealing with, although I do not disagree that some other weapon could have been used if guns were not as available.

I personally think that the chances of there being a lower body count from Holmes NOT having the weapons he was able to purchase his weapons from Denver gun shops, are significantly higher than they would be had there been a "shoot-out" as you suggest.





Cz