[Vance]

Originally Posted by Pyro

A Gun is not needed in your ordinary life, it has no purpose but to kill.

PRO-MURDER!

You just got fucking burned, go put that cock back in your mouth and shut the fuck up.

[Sgt>Stackem]

Originally Posted by CoMaToSe

Actaully no. The weapon used was, in 1999, considered an assault weapon. Any semi or fully automatic weapon is considered an assault weapon. The clinton administrations illegalizing of all assault weapons was in effect in 1999. SO yes, the weapon used was illegal.

wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!


it is concidered an assault weapon but you needed to violate 3 of the 5 directives in oredr for it to have been illegan under the AWB (assault weapons ban)
1 folding stock'
2 detachable mag
3 bayonette
4 pistol grip
5 thumb hole on stock.

[CoMaToSe]

Originally Posted by SoLiDUS

An interesting side-note related to "assault weapons": in Canada, we have a few semi-auto centerfire rifles (like the AR-15) that fall under the restricted firearms section based on their esthetics, which is regretable considering how other "less physically threatening" models are capable of the same <liberal> damage </liberal> and magazine loading restrictions.

rolleyes:

[SoLiDUS]

Originally Posted by Pyro

A Gun is not needed in your ordinary life, it has no purpose but to kill.

PRO-MURDER!

Needs fallacy.

I could mention their many legal uses, such as hunting, sport/olympic shooting, plinking and the defense of self, property and a check on government oppression.

One could counter your arguments with examples of how dangerous computers can be in the hands of trained criminals, and how the financial damages resulting from their misuse can end up, through the butterfly effect (cause and effect), killing more people and costing more to the world than simple firearms transgressions.

This is simply unacceptable! I propose we initiate a movement to ban all computers. Who's with me !? stupid:

[Pyro]

Originally Posted by Vance

You just got fucking burned, go put that cock back in your mouth and shut the fuck up.

burned by who? Only comment I made earlier had to do with Vietnam.

I like handguns, that is good enough for protection purposes...I just see no point to needing a semi-auto or automatic weapon.

[Sgt&gt;Stackem]

Originally Posted by Pyro

burned by who? Only comment I made earlier had to do with Vietnam.

I like handguns, that is good enough for protection purposes...I just see no point to needing a semi-auto or automatic weapon.

sorry to rain on your parade but many pistols are semi autos

I think you dont know the difference or you believe the main stream media that says every shooting is with an "AK47"

[Madmartagen]

Originally Posted by Colonel

This isn't the case here because we know the outcome. If the policeman had shot the guy when he was dancing around like a lunatic it would have saved the officer's life but some folks would be screaming that he didn't have to do it. Hindsight is 20/20.

There ought to be a law that if the officer tells you to "get your hands outa your pocket" or "get back here" a certain number of times and you don't do it he can shoot you on principle alone.

The policeman should have shot the guy the moment he pulled out his gun or made a gesture that was an obvious threat (e.g. pointing, turning, pulling out the weapon, loading it, fucking it). The whole incident was on tape from the officers camera so there is no need to call out for excessive force when there wasnt any. That was my point in my original post, there was no excessive force.

You have to be kidding on the last part. Cops cant go around shooting people just because theyre too scared, bored or stupid to determine if someone is putting your life in danger. Just because people dont obey an officers every command, that doesnt qualify them for a bullet. When people get drunk, they get belligerant. When they get upset or scared, they become evasive and belligerent. Of course, by doing so you warrant yourself a good tackle by 4 or 5 officers and getting the knee in your back before ending up hog tied in the back of a squad car.

As for the gun control, this type of violence is a price we have to pay for living in this type of free society. People want guns, its that simple. There are alot of bad people here and since they have access to guns, youre gonna have this type of problem. There is no way you could effectively ban weapons in the US, there are too many of them out there. If for some reason, every gun in the US were to dissolve right now, people would still manage to get them elsewhere. The only problem in this case was that the officer should have shot sooner and better. In some cases you learn from your mistakes with your life, and that was this case. Im all for guns, owning some myself, the only problem is that just about anyone can get them. I think a requirement should be some training courses and a better criminal background checks. Like I said, im all for guns, but I dont think it should be a constitutional amendment, because then it means everyone should be allowed to own one, and I certainly dont agree to that.

[tomxtr]

Originally Posted by Madmartagen

As for the gun control, this type of violence is a price we have to pay for living in this type of free society. People want guns, its that simple. There are alot of bad people here and since they have access to guns, youre gonna have this type of problem. There is no way you could effectively ban weapons in the US, there are too many of them out there. If for some reason, every gun in the US were to dissolve right now, people would still manage to get them elsewhere. The only problem in this case was that the officer should have shot sooner and better. In some cases you learn from your mistakes with your life, and that was this case. Im all for guns, owning some myself, the only problem is that just about anyone can get them. I think a requirement should be some training courses and a better criminal background checks. Like I said, im all for guns, but I dont think it should be a constitutional amendment, because then it means everyone should be allowed to own one, and I certainly dont agree to that.

I agree...with a lot of what you said.

The problem is criminal don't buy their guns legally in the first place. Criminal background checks are a good idea, but the reality is that it doesn't deter criminals from obtaining firearms.

Training courses might help to prevent accidents, but certainly wouldn't prevent incidents such as these. Besides, statistically swimming pools are much more dangerous in terms of accidental deaths than firearms, and there is no training required to own a residential pool.

Not sure what the solution is, but guns control laws don't seem to work. Perhaps, if felons actually served their full terms and if sentencing of convicted criminals was a bit more harsh, it would curtail some crimes.

[Vance]

Originally Posted by Pyro

burned by who? Only comment I made earlier had to do with Vietnam.

I like handguns, that is good enough for protection purposes...I just see no point to needing a semi-auto or automatic weapon.

eek:

You just said a gun is not needed in your life, but then you say handguns are okay? Man, learn to think before you speak, kid.

And you got burned by Soli's wisdom, and you just tried to cover it up by saying 'handguns are okay'. (Which are mainly semi-auto, try actually learning something before you open your mouth).

GG.

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by SoLiDUS

Actually, my uninformed friend, Australia and England now suffer from even MORE violent crime as a result of disarming its populace. It's very easy to understand why. I will gladly link you to the data if you really wish to be educated: it may sound counter-intuitive, but when you publicly announce that no one has an efficient means of defending self and property, you are giving criminals the thumb's up to do anything they please. Of course, I'm not even going to get into the idea that a phone call will save you or that your public servants can be everywhere and are somehow more qualified to use firearms after a 14 hour training period. Simply ignorance, and I for one am tired of the feel-good bullshit that you try to feed everyone. </rant>

PM ME if you want the research reports. I will happily set the record straight.

PS. If you're going to get into the NEEDS fallacy, I will oblige you to dispose of practically everything you own, because by your own logic, they serve no real purpose other than make your life slightly easier to live. You don't need your car, your television or that computer. Please relinquish them immediately as they are unnecessary and can pose a health hazard to all the sheeple out there...

No, I won't dispose of my car, I use it to get to get places.

My television entertains me, as does my Computer.

A gun......What does a gun do for me (other than give me a weapon to potentially kill people without thinking twice), that a baseball bat/Golf club/Shovel can't do?

If I do want a gun, I'll go get a license - Just like If I want to drive my car, I'll go ge a license to do so. The license process (In both cases) is intended to weed out those that pose a risk to the lives of others. What the fuck is wrong with that? I don't get why you continue to criticise two countries whose gun laws enable the people to own a gun if they actually need one.

I also don't get why you critique the police training process....It shouldn't take them more than 14 hours to teach how to operate a gun. If you're trying to say that 14 hour training period is the only thing that police have to get through to be able to use a gun, then you're wrong. The fact that they're already in the police is reason enough to trust them more with weapons, because just like gun licenseing, to get in the police there is that same process to weed out undesireables. So once they reach the gun training period with their recruits they have already eliminated those that would be unsafe or untrustworthy with a gun.

....and for the record, I only pipe up on this issue when you or others like you critique other countries gun laws, which is uneeded seeing as you don't live in those countries, so it shouldn't effect you... and seeing as how this issue is most certainly NOT black and white, I have just as much right as you or anyone else to rant my "feel-good bullshit."

Sheeple? Kindly go fuck yourself you french faggot.

BTW - Go ahead and post those stats. I'm sure there probably is another reason for the rise in violent crime after the beefing up of gun laws...

[CoMaToSe]

.... I live in Germany. Can I complain about their gun laws?

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by CoMaToSe

.... I live in Germany. Can I complain about their gun laws?

Why wouldn't you be able too?

[Zoner]

Originally Posted by Tripper

Why wouldn't you be able too?

Gestapo.

[SoLiDUS]

Originally Posted by Tripper

No, I won't dispose of my car, I use it to get to get places.

My television entertains me, as does my Computer.

A gun......What does a gun do for me (other than give me a weapon to potentially kill people without thinking twice), that a baseball bat/Golf club/Shovel can't do?

I like how you conveniently avoid mentioning their legal properties to favor your idiotic stance on gun control. Well done, but it doesn't work on people with an ounce of intelligence.

If I do want a gun, I'll go get a license - Just like If I want to drive my car, I'll go ge a license to do so. The license process (In both cases) is intended to weed out those that pose a risk to the lives of others. What the fuck is wrong with that? I don't get why you continue to criticise two countries whose gun laws enable the people to own a gun if they actually need one.

I also don't get why you critique the police training process....It shouldn't take them more than 14 hours to teach how to operate a gun. If you're trying to say that 14 hour training period is the only thing that police have to get through to be able to use a gun, then you're wrong. The fact that they're already in the police is reason enough to trust them more with weapons, because just like gun licenseing, to get in the police there is that same process to weed out undesireables. So once they reach the gun training period with their recruits they have already eliminated those that would be unsafe or untrustworthy with a gun.

Nice fallacious argument: because they are police we should trust them. Well played: if you actually knew how easy it was to pass those qualifications, you would worry.

....and for the record, I only pipe up on this issue when you or others like you critique other countries gun laws, which is uneeded seeing as you don't live in those countries, so it shouldn't effect you... and seeing as how this issue is most certainly NOT black and white, I have just as much right as you or anyone else to rant my "feel-good bullshit."

The reason it DOES affect all of us is because other countries tend to imitate what they see as furthering their preferences. In this case, it's really easy to understand how one country's stance can affect the others.

Sheeple? Kindly go fuck yourself you french faggot.

Yes. Sheeple. You're moved by "authorities" and do little more than grunt as you comply: in a perverted way, you deserve the ills that are befalling you.

BTW - Go ahead and post those stats. I'm sure there probably is another reason for the rise in violent crime after the beefing up of gun laws...

That argument has been tried time and time again: I will start you off with the following study, and when you're done, let me know so I can give you more material.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/boo ... riment.pdf

I find it regrettable that you are so easily manipulated into believing the lies and propaganda fed to you, however I am not surprised. It takes guts and a critical mind to analyze the issue and accept the facts, which are decidedly not in favor of gun control.

[SoLiDUS]

Originally Posted by Zoner

Gestapo.

N9IN! There is no Gestapo! Nothing to see here! Move along! HEIL!!