Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Koldes

Shooting in Orlando, FL - 50+ have passed away, 50+ more injured

272 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, Eviljesus said:

Mentioning grenades , rockets, etc when comparing to a AR15 is absurd.  Your better than that.  My point is one you can't prove it will make us any safer and two how many steps will they keep wanting to take.

I mentioned grenades because it was a law put in place in 1934 and amended in 68. We have taken steps to try to make sure we aren't as destructive as we can be. I'm not a gun expert so I don't know, but I don't know if in '34 or back with the founding fathers, I doubt could have ever expected the massive, destructive technology that we have nowadays.

The "slippery slope" argument is just a straw-man argument. Conservative said the same thing about gay marriage. "What's next, someone wants to marry their dog or their daughter?!" A year later, nothing has really changed at all to impede straight marriages just because gays can.

If we are afraid of slippery slopes to be able to make changes in the country, then let's just completely shut down the entire government right now, because no legislation they can pass will ever be good enough because it could always lead to more and more and more, it's a slippery slope after all. 

"You can't prove it will make us any safer" is a lame argument on why you shouldn't do something. They said the same thing when people wanted to put in regulations for workplace conditions, child labor laws, lead paint in houses and toys, airplane travel regulations, and so much more. The fear to take steps seems to be crippling to about half the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Koldes said:

I mentioned grenades because it was a law put in place in 1934 and amended in 68. We have taken steps to try to make sure we aren't as destructive as we can be. I'm not a gun expert so I don't know, but I don't know if in '34 or back with the founding fathers, I doubt could have ever expected the massive, destructive technology that we have nowadays.

The "slippery slope" argument is just a straw-man argument. Conservative said the same thing about gay marriage. "What's next, someone wants to marry their dog or their daughter?!" A year later, nothing has really changed at all to impede straight marriages just because gays can.

If we are afraid of slippery slopes to be able to make changes in the country, then let's just completely shut down the entire government right now, because no legislation they can pass will ever be good enough because it could always lead to more and more and more, it's a slippery slope after all. 

"You can't prove it will make us any safer" is a lame argument on why you shouldn't do something. They said the same thing when people wanted to put in regulations for workplace conditions, child labor laws, lead paint in houses and toys, airplane travel regulations, and so much more. The fear to take steps seems to be crippling to about half the country. 

Now your being a typical dramatic liberal. It's not change we fear, it's liberal ran world.  If we were talking riding the country of guns, then yes maybe we would be safer from mass shootings. Just removing one particular one will not prove anything.  When you speak of banning one kind of gun is always going to be a red flag to which one is next.  Especially when liberals would love to remove all guns from us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Eviljesus said:

Now your being a typical dramatic liberal. It's not change we fear, it's liberal ran world.  If we were talking riding the country of guns, then yes maybe we would be safer from mass shootings. Just removing one particular one will not prove anything.  When you speak of banning one kind of gun is always going to be a red flag to which one is next.  Especially when liberals would love to remove all guns from us.

I'm not suggesting just banning AR-15s, and I don't claim to know much about types of guns or their uses, but I don't see any reason to have a gun available that isn't (a) a handgun or (b) a hunting rifle/shotgun.

I'd be happy to be more educated on the subject and I say that sincerely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard Curt Schilling (who I dont like) on the radio today and I didnt get all of what he said but it was something like the laws in Florida allow for the magazines of those guns to be higher capacity than in other states. In Mass. for example he was saying they only allow 10 rds of ammunition or something which isnt that high. Bascially he was saying Florida's gun laws are weaker. It doesnt sound like the need to ban the gun itself, just get the laws for magazines used for it changed to be stricter like in Mass. Someone mentioned Adam Lanza, the CT laws seem complicated to me but they appear to be somewhere inbtween strict and no regulation with large magazines.

Quote

Florida has no laws regulating large capacity ammunition magazines

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/state-large-capacity-magazines/

This site has the laws in each state.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Andrew said:

I'm not suggesting just banning AR-15s, and I don't claim to know much about types of guns or their uses, but I don't see any reason to have a gun available that isn't (a) a handgun or (b) a hunting rifle/shotgun.

I'd be happy to be more educated on the subject and I say that sincerely.

In my town guns are used mostly for target shooting.  It may sound strange, but it's no different around here as say bowling.  The sport is becoming a good marksmen with different rifles.  It comes with bragging rights.  We shoot handguns too, but they are more for home protection.  Depending on the animal your hunting you need different rifles or even shotguns.  For example most use a thirty ought six for deer and a twenty-two for raccoons.  Hope this gives a little insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DarkDragon said:

I heard Curt Schilling (who I dont like) on the radio today and I didnt get all of what he said but it was something like the laws in Florida allow for the magazines of those guns to be higher capacity than in other states. In Mass. for example he was saying they only allow 10 rds of ammunition or something which isnt that high. Bascially he was saying Florida's gun laws are weaker. It doesnt sound like the need to ban the gun itself, just get the laws for magazines used for it changed to be stricter like in Mass.

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/state-large-capacity-magazines/

This site has the laws in each state.

 

I don't mind that.  Super high capacity magazines are unnecessary.  There is no need for say a thirty-three round capacity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say for anyone looking for a good debate on gun control, go watch The Justicar on YouTube. Really informative person, and he actually changed my views when I pretty vehemently for better control in the past. 

This is just a starting point, he has countless videos on this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Eviljesus said:

I don't mind that.  Super high capacity magazines are unnecessary.  There is no need for say a thirty-three round capacity. 

How high do they usually go ? All the states that allow no limits should look into better restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eviljesus said:

I don't mind that.  Super high capacity magazines are unnecessary.  There is no need for say a thirty-three round capacity. 

Agreed. And most gun enthusiasts would agree. Some won't but I wanna say they are pretty slim. I could be wrong but I think an nra poll was done on that. The problem is that's not what people are after. Most want to jump straight to the gun. In realty, a semi automatic rifle is only as fast as a person can pull the trigger which is the same as a pistol. More people will probably survive a shot from a pistol but the overall impact won't be any different. It will still cause rage and sadness and outcries. Then the next step is pistols? Its a downward spiral lawful citizens don't want to be a victim of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DarkDragon said:

 

How high do they usually go ? All the states that allow no limits should look into better restrictions.

Depends on the gun.  Some only twenty to thirty.  I've seen hundred round drums for some rifles.  No idea why.  That would be one very expensive trip to the range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know much about this stuff because there's no gun culture here. Didnt know anyone who had any (friends, family) etc. If you want protection, just get a dog or an alarm system on your home lol. As far as target practicing and shooting thats not popular here to my knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Brad said:

Agreed. And most gun enthusiasts would agree. Some won't but I wanna say they are pretty slim. I could be wrong but I think an nra poll was done on that. The problem is that's not what people are after. Most want to jump straight to the gun. In realty, a semi automatic rifle is only as fast as a person can pull the trigger which is the same as a pistol. More people will probably survive a shot from a pistol but the overall impact won't be any different. It will still cause rage and sadness and outcries. Then the next step is pistols? Its a downward spiral lawful citizens don't want to be a victim of. 

Ya if your getting some of these high capacity mags chances are you modified your gun to full auto, which is extremely illegal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this post on Facebook 

 

 

Ok. I'm going to have to fix a few people on here because emotions are high and stupid shit is being supported. 
First off, most of you have no clue what an assault rifle is! It's not your fault you don't know, I will educate you. An assault rifle is a rifle with the ability to go fully automatic. That means if you hold the trigger down, it keeps going bang until you release the trigger or the weapon runs out of ammo. The first assault rifle came about during WWII with the German Stg44. It had the power of a rifle with nearly the rate of fire of a sub-machine gun (full auto). Inspired out of this WWII era gun came the most well knows assault rifles of all time, the AK-47 and the M-16. Both had the ability for fully automatic fire. When people say they want a ban on assault weapons they think they are banning fully automatic rifles from civilian hands. The problem is that these weapons are ALREADY BANNED! See National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and  Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986. Civilians cannot obtain these weapons. They are for military and police use almost exclusively.
So what is this AR-15 if not an assault rifle? It is a standard rifle that LOOKS LIKE a fully automatic M-16, but does not function like one. It does the same thing as any other standard rifle. One trigger pull = one bang. Most of you are not stupid enough to want to ban a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle (pictured on top), but cry that the AR-15 (pictured on bottom) is a deadly assault rifle when they are literally capable of the same thing. Same ammo, same capacity, same function. The aesthetic differences between the two are what some want to ban and have banned in the past, which if you look at them, are pants-on-head-retarded to consider deadly features. Some of the things that made a standard functioning rifle considered an assault weapon are: 
A folding or telescoping stock - (does not make the weapon any deadlier).
A pistol grip - (does not make the weapon any deadlier).
A bayonet mount - (does not make the weapon any deadlier).
A flash suppressor - (does not make the weapon any deadlier).
You see what I'm getting at? The weapons you actually want banned are ALREADY BANNED. The weapons used in these attacks are regular functioning rifles designed to look like their full auto, military counterparts. 
So if the AR-15 isn't more dangerous than any other standard rifle, then why is is the one being used in all of these shootings? Simple. It just happens to be the most popular rifle in the country. It's the iPhone of rifles. It is an affordable, accurate rifle that is easy to personalize because everyone makes accessories for it. It isn't any easier to acquire than other rifles, just more available.
To wrap this up, If you support banning fully automatic assault rifles, fine. You support a law that is already in place for good reason. I agree we generally don't need machine guns. However, if you think we should ban standard functioning rifles because of things like how you hold the grip or how adjustable the buttstock is, you are an idiot!
Consider yourselves educated on this matter.

FB_IMG_1466048318778.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Matt said:

I will say for anyone looking for a good debate on gun control, go watch The Justicar on YouTube. Really informative person, and he actually changed my views when I pretty vehemently for better control in the past. 

This is just a starting point, he has countless videos on this.

 

 

So I just watched this.  Him being incredibly well-spoken, very intelligent, and obviously knowing a lot about history aside, what in this video is supposed to change my mind about why we should take a hard look about changing our gun laws?  I hate when people bring up the constitution like it's not outdated.  Like we had the same guns we do now back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brad said:

Saw this post on Facebook but I'm on my phone saw can't copy the picture

Not that that isn't informative, theoretically, but I have zero respect for anyone who can't type up an informative post without calling people "pants-on-head retarded" or otherwise.  People don't want to be educated by someone who doesn't address them respectfully.  Insulting people when you're trying to teach them is just going to drive them away.

This is a problem with a lot of political dissent in our country, is that no one is capable of respectful debate, so no one can debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nixon said:

So I just watched this.  Him being incredibly well-spoken, very intelligent, and obviously knowing a lot about history aside, what in this video is supposed to change my mind about why we should take a hard look about changing our gun laws?  I hate when people bring up the constitution like it's not outdated.  Like we had the same guns we do now back then.

I said it's a starting point, he has multiple videos on this. Here is his video responding to Sam Harris

And I can't tell you what will and will not change your opinion, I'm showing to you a person that helped me with my current views. Then again, I've had debates with him in the comment section as well as Twitter. So maybe it went more in-depth there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nixon said:

So I just watched this.  Him being incredibly well-spoken, very intelligent, and obviously knowing a lot about history aside, what in this video is supposed to change my mind about why we should take a hard look about changing our gun laws?  I hate when people bring up the constitution like it's not outdated.  Like we had the same guns we do now back then.

They are out dated but the bill of rights is still relevant. Every one of them. Yes the guns aren't the same but the need for them is no different

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eviljesus said:

Let's say they rid the country of AR15's.  Now a few weeks later a maniac uses a everyday plan old nine mm, along with a bag full of clips, to kill sixteen kids at his local park.  Now would have he used a AR15 if they had still been available?  If he had would have there been more deaths?  Do we now look at banning nine mm's?  These are the questions we ask ourselves.  

And evidence from other countries shows you this is exactly what happens. Today's gun control lobby are tomorrow gun banning lobby. 

When semi-automatics were outlawed it was seen as a sensible response but there's no middle ground with many who just don't believe in private gun ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brad said:

Saw this post on Facebook 

 

 

Ok. I'm going to have to fix a few people on here because emotions are high and stupid shit is being supported. 
First off, most of you have no clue what an assault rifle is! It's not your fault you don't know, I will educate you. An assault rifle is a rifle with the ability to go fully automatic. That means if you hold the trigger down, it keeps going bang until you release the trigger or the weapon runs out of ammo. The first assault rifle came about during WWII with the German Stg44. It had the power of a rifle with nearly the rate of fire of a sub-machine gun (full auto). Inspired out of this WWII era gun came the most well knows assault rifles of all time, the AK-47 and the M-16. Both had the ability for fully automatic fire. When people say they want a ban on assault weapons they think they are banning fully automatic rifles from civilian hands. The problem is that these weapons are ALREADY BANNED! See National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and  Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986. Civilians cannot obtain these weapons. They are for military and police use almost exclusively.
So what is this AR-15 if not an assault rifle? It is a standard rifle that LOOKS LIKE a fully automatic M-16, but does not function like one. It does the same thing as any other standard rifle. One trigger pull = one bang. Most of you are not stupid enough to want to ban a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle (pictured on top), but cry that the AR-15 (pictured on bottom) is a deadly assault rifle when they are literally capable of the same thing. Same ammo, same capacity, same function. The aesthetic differences between the two are what some want to ban and have banned in the past, which if you look at them, are pants-on-head-retarded to consider deadly features. Some of the things that made a standard functioning rifle considered an assault weapon are: 
A folding or telescoping stock - (does not make the weapon any deadlier).
A pistol grip - (does not make the weapon any deadlier).
A bayonet mount - (does not make the weapon any deadlier).
A flash suppressor - (does not make the weapon any deadlier).
You see what I'm getting at? The weapons you actually want banned are ALREADY BANNED. The weapons used in these attacks are regular functioning rifles designed to look like their full auto, military counterparts. 
So if the AR-15 isn't more dangerous than any other standard rifle, then why is is the one being used in all of these shootings? Simple. It just happens to be the most popular rifle in the country. It's the iPhone of rifles. It is an affordable, accurate rifle that is easy to personalize because everyone makes accessories for it. It isn't any easier to acquire than other rifles, just more available.
To wrap this up, If you support banning fully automatic assault rifles, fine. You support a law that is already in place for good reason. I agree we generally don't need machine guns. However, if you think we should ban standard functioning rifles because of things like how you hold the grip or how adjustable the buttstock is, you are an idiot!
Consider yourselves educated on this matter.

FB_IMG_1466048318778.jpg

Fine then, just ban them both and all other Rifles, problem solved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, EchoX860 said:

Fine then, just ban them both and all other Rifles, problem solved. 

Do I really have to spell this out. Banning guns does not stop gun violence. There is nothing but evidence that shows this. There is no evidence that shows otherwise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Koldes said:

So is it a 2nd amendment thing we're discussing, or people's enjoyment that you're trying to defend?

If the good guys with guns want to protect themselves and have a Constitutional right to do so, I'm on the same page as you. If your reasoning that we can't maybe save a few lives is so these guys can have more fun and enjoyment, no, I'm sorry, I'm not okay with it.

So which one is it? I'd love to keep talking about which one you mean.

Everyone I know that has a gun is for protection but they do enjoy shooting at a range as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.