Unlucky 15 Year Old Accidentally Shot By Brother

Amazing story that really goes to show you why we do not need guns in this country.

Another one ('cause it's THAT "amazing").

Let me guess......the Illuminati was behind this................

Please don't exploit emotions to further your agendadave123321

You mean like this?

[QUOTE="dave123321"]Please don't exploit emotions to further your agendaChargeagles1

You mean like this?

Let me guess......the Illuminati was behind this................

Chow_Mein_Kampf

[QUOTE="Chargeagles1"]

[QUOTE="dave123321"]Please don't exploit emotions to further your agendadave123321

You mean like this?

Good to know the rules only apply to the people whose agenda opposes your own.

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="Chargeagles1"]

You mean like this?

C2N2

Good to know the rules only apply to the people whose agenda opposes your own.

Feel free to leave if you don't like it. There are plenty of countries that have taken away guns. senses_fail_06

For that matter, feel free to leave my thread, if you feel that the aforementioned news "offends" you.

Oh shut up.

This goes for the pro-gun side too. Guns are legal, accidents happen. Guns are banned, accidents still happen, and not just with guns too. The world is spinning, people die, people do stupid things, people have their moments of glory or stupidity, etc, etc.

Stupid kids with irresponsible parents are not a justification for taking away our constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves.Laihendi

Pretty much this.

Oh shut up.

This goes for the pro-gun side too. Guns are legal, accidents happen. Guns are banned, accidents still happen, and not just with guns too. The world is spinning, people die, people do stupid things, people have their moments of glory or stupidity, etc, etc.

leviathan91

I recognize that. I was just pointing out how easy it is to find cases online that use pathos to support a person's point. Through satirizing the previous thread, I was also pointing out the hypocrisy in some of the members reactions. I personally, believe that assault weapons should be banned,background checks should be comprehensive, and the "gun show loophole" should be closed. I do believe guns are a right, but I believe that it is a limited right.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Stupid kids with irresponsible parents are not a justification for taking away our constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves.airshocker

Pretty much this.

Feel free to leave if you don't like it. There are plenty of countries that have taken away guns. senses_fail_06

Why would he shoot a corpse. I don't get it.Ace6301

Haha, yeah. I noticed that too. It should probably be "Boy fatally shoots friend" or something

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Oh shut up.

This goes for the pro-gun side too. Guns are legal, accidents happen. Guns are banned, accidents still happen, and not just with guns too. The world is spinning, people die, people do stupid things, people have their moments of glory or stupidity, etc, etc.

Chargeagles1

I recognize that. I was just pointing out how easy it is to find cases online that use pathos to support a person's point. Through satirizing the previous thread, I was also pointing out the hypocrisy in some of the members reactions. I personally, believe that assault weapons should be banned,background checks should be comprehensive, and the "gun show loophole" should be closed. I do believe guns are a right, but I believe that it is a limited right.

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]Feel free to leave if you don't like it. There are plenty of countries that have taken away guns. Chargeagles1

For that matter, feel free to leave my thread, if you feel that the aforementioned news "offends" you.

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]Feel free to leave if you don't like it. There are plenty of countries that have taken away guns. worlock77

Who's saying all guns should be banned?Ace6301

People are trying to get AR-15s banned in New York State. If you had heard Cuomo's SOTS speech, you'd be as worried as I am.

I'll put it simply.

The shooting was a tragedy. There is no doubting that.

Were guns involved? Yes.

Are they an issue that needs to be dealt with? Of course.

Will trying to one-up each other on the issue by exploiting past and present occurences solve anything? No. It only causes each side to further cement their flawed and incomplete views on a subject instead of allowing them to come to a concensus.

[QUOTE="Chargeagles1"]

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Oh shut up.

This goes for the pro-gun side too. Guns are legal, accidents happen. Guns are banned, accidents still happen, and not just with guns too. The world is spinning, people die, people do stupid things, people have their moments of glory or stupidity, etc, etc.

dave123321

I recognize that. I was just pointing out how easy it is to find cases online that use pathos to support a person's point. Through satirizing the previous thread, I was also pointing out the hypocrisy in some of the members reactions. I personally, believe that assault weapons should be banned,background checks should be comprehensive, and the "gun show loophole" should be closed. I do believe guns are a right, but I believe that it is a limited right.

*ding ding* we have a winner! (or somebody who actually pays attention to gamespot threads...)

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Who's saying all guns should be banned?airshocker

People are trying to get AR-15s banned in New York State. If you had heard Cuomo's SOTS speech, you'd be as worried as I am.

I'll put it simply.

The shooting was a tragedy. There is no doubting that.

Were guns involved? Yes.

Are they an issue that needs to be dealt with? Of course.

Will trying to one-up each other on the issue by exploiting past and present occurences solve anything? No. It only causes each side to further cement their flawed and incomplete views on a subject instead of allowing them to come to a concensus.

WiiCubeM1

I know that. I was satirizing the previous thread.

[QUOTE="WiiCubeM1"]

I'll put it simply.

The shooting was a tragedy. There is no doubting that.

Were guns involved? Yes.

Are they an issue that needs to be dealt with? Of course.

Will trying to one-up each other on the issue by exploiting past and present occurences solve anything? No. It only causes each side to further cement their flawed and incomplete views on a subject instead of allowing them to come to a concensus.

Chargeagles1

I know that. I was satirizing the previous thread.

Well, I know that. I'm just putting this here to start conversation.

AR-15s aren't all guns though. As such they aren't removing your right.Ace6301

And until there is a justifiable reason to ban AR-15s, it is still attacking my right to own weapons.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]AR-15s aren't all guns though. As such they aren't removing your right.airshocker

And until there is a justifiable reason to ban AR-15s, it is still attacking my right to own weapons.

I'm an advocate for gun ownership, but why would you have need for a semi-automatic rifle?

I'm an advocate for gun ownership, but why would you have need for a semi-automatic rifle?

WiiCubeM1

To shoot it...? That's what a rifle is for.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]AR-15s aren't all guns though. As such they aren't removing your right.airshocker

And until there is a justifiable reason to ban AR-15s, it is still attacking my right to own weapons.

But you don't have a right to own any specific weapon. Just the right to bear arms. They've already made it illegal to have various other weapons so there is precedent.Ace6301

As I've explained before, I have the right to bear arms with some reasonable exceptions. Banning the AR-15 platform isn't reasonable. Thus it's an attack on my 2nd amendment rights.

Banning fully automatic AR-15s is reasonable. As such no fully automatic rifles can be made in the US, or imported(unless the BATF approves it). Banning collapsable buttstocks isn't reasonable. Banning pistol grips isn't reasonable. Banning foregrips isn't reasonable. Banning 30 round magazines is straddling the line, though as I've shown before, someone can shoot 10 round magazines and reload almost as quickly as it would take someone to go through a 30 round magazine.

[QUOTE="WiiCubeM1"]

I'm an advocate for gun ownership, but why would you have need for a semi-automatic rifle?

airshocker

To shoot it...? That's what a rifle is for.

I thought that was what a pistol was for. Weird. Are you telling me that you can shoot with both!?

That makes them interchangeable (in your logic). Thus, whenever you want to complain about not having the right to own an assault weapon, go and buy a basic pistol. They both shoot. Thererfore they are the same (in your twisted logic).

[QUOTE="WiiCubeM1"]

I'm an advocate for gun ownership, but why would you have need for a semi-automatic rifle?

airshocker

To shoot it...? That's what a rifle is for.

I live in PA. Semi-automatics are illegal for anything other than target shooting. They have no practical use unless there is some kind of apocalypse and I need a rapid-fire weapon to fight the hordes that are coming for my food/brains. To me, they are just wastes of money (especially since the ammo is a dollar a shell, at least in my area).

I haven't heard any kind of legislation for repeating rifles, shotguns, or small arms yet, and those are the only weapons that really serve any kind of purpose for a civilian, and by that, I mean hunting. I eat a lot of game.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]But you don't have a right to own any specific weapon. Just the right to bear arms. They've already made it illegal to have various other weapons so there is precedent.airshocker

As I've explained before, I have the right to bear arms with some reasonable exceptions. Banning the AR-15 platform isn't reasonable. Thus it's an attack on my 2nd amendment rights.

Banning fully automatic AR-15s is reasonable. As such no fully automatic rifles can be made in the US, or imported(unless the BATF approves it). Banning collapsable buttstocks isn't reasonable. Banning pistol grips isn't reasonable. Banning foregrips isn't reasonable. Banning 30 round magazines is straddling the line, though as I've shown before, someone can shoot 10 round magazines and reload almost as quickly as it would take someone to go through a 30 round magazine.

I live in PA. Semi-automatics are illegal for anything other than target shooting. They have no practical use unless there is some kind of apocalypse and I need a rapid-fire weapon to fight the hordes that are coming for my food/brains. To me, they are just wastes of money (especially since the ammo is a dollar a shell, at least in my area).

I haven't heard any kind of legislation for repeating rifles, shotguns, or small arms yet, and those are the only weapons that really serve any kind of purpose for a civilian, and by that, I mean hunting. I eat a lot of game.

WiiCubeM1

You're using the term rapid-fire incorrectly. Clearly you don't understand what the term "practical" stands for because target shooting is indeed a practical use. If you're spending a dollar a round on .223 ammunition let me suggest you switch to WPA Polyformance. They're dirt cheap and they go through AR-15s very well, with almost no loss in accuracy. They're dirty, though.

Again, just because it has no purpose for you doesn't mean there is no purpose for me.

Oh shut up.

This goes for the pro-gun side too. Guns are legal, accidents happen. Guns are banned, accidents still happen, and not just with guns too. The world is spinning, people die, people do stupid things, people have their moments of glory or stupidity, etc, etc.

leviathan91

The thing is your entire argument is about what is reasonable. If the law makers decide it's a reasonable ban then...what? What is deemed reasonable is subjective and if they want to ban it and find it reasonable then what argument are you going to use. I don't give a sh*t what happens personally but your argument is weak here.Ace6301

It's not subjective just because you say it is.

We've already determined that society has to have reasonable gun control measures. Those are in place and it shows in most places. Banning AR-15s isn't reasonable. Not when most gun crime is committed with handguns.

Also if they think a 30 round magazine is reasonable to ban then making a case you can fire without one just as fast isn't helping your side, it's helping theirs. Ace6301

If pointing out the uselessness in such a gesture isn't helping my cause, I have to ask what drugs you are on at the moment.

[QUOTE="WiiCubeM1"]

I live in PA. Semi-automatics are illegal for anything other than target shooting. They have no practical use unless there is some kind of apocalypse and I need a rapid-fire weapon to fight the hordes that are coming for my food/brains. To me, they are just wastes of money (especially since the ammo is a dollar a shell, at least in my area).

I haven't heard any kind of legislation for repeating rifles, shotguns, or small arms yet, and those are the only weapons that really serve any kind of purpose for a civilian, and by that, I mean hunting. I eat a lot of game.

airshocker

You're using the term rapid-fire incorrectly. Clearly you don't understand what the term "practical" stands for because target shooting is indeed a practical use. If you're spending a dollar a round on .223 ammunition let me suggest you switch to WPA Polyformance. They're dirt cheap and they go through AR-15s very well, with almost no loss in accuracy. They're dirty, though.

Again, just because it has no purpose for you doesn't mean there is no purpose for me.

I'm not arguing diction here. When I say rapid-fire, I'm not referring to a fully-automatic weapon, and I am in no way comparing an AR-15 to one. I'm just referring to the nature of a semi-automatic weapon. You can fire it as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Practical weapons, in my eyes, are weapons that grant me something in return for the money and care I put into them. I shot a deer back in November with my .308 and I'm still working my way to the backstrap. An AR-15 is an entertainment piece where I live. Every trip to the shooting range is $50 down the drain when my cousin brings his AR.

I can understand your reasoning, though. I've only been hunting in NY once, but I remember that state regulations allow for a semi-automatic weapon as long as the ammo capacity doesn't exceed 6 rounds. You have to understand my reasoning, though. Many of us that already live with regulations on weapons like the AR never really understand the fuss people throw because we've lived so long without using them, it's almost meaningless to us. As conservative as my family is, we all agree that semi-automatics never really serve a purpose that can't be filled by a normal rifle. The AR being practical to me is as alien as my views are to you.

Oh yeah, and I'll tell my cousin about that Polyformace ammo. Might save him a couple bucks.

My opinion still doesn't change on guns.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]The thing is your entire argument is about what is reasonable. If the law makers decide it's a reasonable ban then...what? What is deemed reasonable is subjective and if they want to ban it and find it reasonable then what argument are you going to use. I don't give a sh*t what happens personally but your argument is weak here.airshocker

It's not subjective just because you say it is.

We've already determined that society has to have reasonable gun control measures. Those are in place and it shows in most places. Banning AR-15s isn't reasonable. Not when most gun crime is committed with handguns.

If pointing out the uselessness in such a gesture isn't helping my cause, I have to ask what drugs you are on at the moment.

airshocker

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]Feel free to leave if you don't like it. There are plenty of countries that have taken away guns. worlock77

I'm not arguing diction here. When I say rapid-fire, I'm not referring to a fully-automatic weapon, and I am in no way comparing an AR-15 to one. I'm just referring to the nature of a semi-automatic weapon. You can fire it as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Practical weapons, in my eyes, are weapons that grant me something in return for the money and care I put into them. I shot a deer back in November with my .308 and I'm still working my way to the backstrap. An AR-15 is an entertainment piece where I live. Every trip to the shooting range is $50 down the drain when my cousin brings his AR.

I can understand your reasoning, though. I've only been hunting in NY once, but I remember that state regulations allow for a semi-automatic weapon as long as the ammo capacity doesn't exceed 6 rounds. You have to understand my reasoning, though. Many of us that already live with regulations on weapons like the AR never really understand the fuss people throw because we've lived so long without using them, it's almost meaningless to us. As conservative as my family is, we all agree that semi-automatics never really serve a purpose that can't be filled by a normal rifle. The AR being practical to me is as alien as my views are to you.

Oh yeah, and I'll tell my cousin about that Polyformace ammo. Might save him a couple bucks.

WiiCubeM1

I have to pay $60 to shoot either a handgun or rifle. And there aren't many places that have indoor rifle ranges. I use my AR-15 at least twice a month. Entertainment is a practical use, and I derive great entertainment from shooting better than all of my buddies. So now you understand my fears on the matter. If I lose my AR-15, I lose about 2k that I've put into it. Gov. Cuomo isn't even suggesting a buyback, he's suggesting a forced confiscation of my AR-15.

Throwing practicality out the window, you have to respect the position I'm in. I've never committed a crime with my firearms. I've never so much as joked with one of them. The mere suggestion of taking it away from me is an outrage. Not only that, but these chuckleheads in my state are suggesting a separate, state-run NICS for AMMUNITION PURHCASES! And outlawing ammunition from being bought online.

I'm sick and tired of being punished for doing absolutely nothing wrong. And those who are apathetic to this issue are no better than the people who are doing this.

You say it's not subjective but yet these law makers clearly see that it is reasonable to ban the AR-15. You disagree with them and think it isn't reasonable. It is very clearly subjective. All you're doing is pointing out that an AR-15 is just as deadly without a feature that is supposed to increase it's lethality. If you're trying to argue that the AR-15 is being banned unreasonably you are doing an incredibly good job helping the stance you oppose. Ace6301

Okay, then explain to me why it's reasonable to ban AR-15s and their aesthetic components.

A weapon is going to be deadly regardless of what kind of magazine is inside of it. That's why it's pointless to worry about the magazine size.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]You say it's not subjective but yet these law makers clearly see that it is reasonable to ban the AR-15. You disagree with them and think it isn't reasonable. It is very clearly subjective. All you're doing is pointing out that an AR-15 is just as deadly without a feature that is supposed to increase it's lethality. If you're trying to argue that the AR-15 is being banned unreasonably you are doing an incredibly good job helping the stance you oppose. airshocker

Okay, then explain to me why it's reasonable to ban AR-15s and their aesthetic components.

A weapon is going to be deadly regardless of what kind of magazine is inside of it. That's why it's pointless to worry about the magazine size.

As I said I don't f*cking care. Just telling you your argument is subjective and law makers have precedent on their side. If you took that argument to court you'd get laughed out. It's bad. Make up a new one.Ace6301

Humor me.