[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]+1 If concealed to carry was allowed in that Colorado town, I'd bet that not as many people would've died. The only thing more guns would have caused during that fiasco would have been more casualties. The death toll was actually mercifully low, due to the shooter using birdshot in his shotgun and a jam-happy Beta C-mag (which no one with common sense would ever use outside of a firing range) in his AR-15 that gave out within seconds. A Glock being whipped out by a member of the audience would have just caused more misery, and even if hits were landed on the lunatic in the packed theater, he was wearing a considerable about of body armor that would have no issue stopping most CC-friendly rounds.
no the best possible solution is to give everyone guns because then theyll just shoot at bad guys and stuff
what could go wrong?
Verge_6's forum posts
I would suggest regulations on any weapon that can gun down a dozen people in seconds.redstorm72So any weapon designed since the 1880s, including your father's hunting rifles? This is why I'm harping on you, you're riddling your arguments with inconsistencies and double-standards.
I still don't understand why you have such a stick up your rear about my word usage when it really had nothing to do with what I was saying.redstorm72The same reason anyone with even a lick of medical knowledge has a stick up their rear about people who think vaccines don't do anything; you're spreading terms and even ideas that are just not solid, consistent, or even in the realm of reality, even if it is unintentional.
, I meant "assualt weapon" (even though "semi automaitc assualt rifle" is pretty much axactly what an assualt weapon is)redstorm72
So you meant an incredibly vague, inconsistent political term (defined as such in said link, which is a huge red-flag in and of itself) that's used to sell regulations. I think you were just as well off using the "completely irrelevant semantic error". A "semi automatic assault rifle" is as much a contradiction as a communist fascist. What's particularly amusing about the term "assault weapon" in the wikilink you posted is the "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range," part. My WASR-10/63 was importing for sporting purposes (and is listed as such with the BATFE). It functions exactly as the rifle below it, the VEPR hunting rifle, with hardly any differences in operation and performance.
However, I'm sure your "assault weapon" definition would define the former as an evil tool of death and destruction, while the latter is A-OK. This is because it's hilariously dependent on cosmetics, and that's what you're basing your fear on. You're not concerned of the slew of semi-auto hunting weapons that tens of thousands of hunters like your father use because they don't look scary.
I highly advise watching this.
And how exactly is this intended purpose differentiation going to be implemented? Mind reading?
America needs to change massively about their mentality on guns before gun control or even a ban is possible. It should be a hobbyist thing, this buying guns for your safety illusion need to get adressed.rastotm
With guns, just point and click. It's over.0mega3FattyAcidI can tell you haven't shot many guns, if any. [QUOTE="0mega3FattyAcid"] Bottom line, if there were no guns, you can be sure as **** there would be less homicide and suicides.
<3Meanwhile, in the realm of reality, there are guns everywhere and it is literally impossible to change that. This is as pointless a topic as "If there were no disease, people wouldn't get sick and die!".
You hate the best war movie ever made?BossPerson
It's hardly the best war movie ever made, especially when you consider that it's markedly inferior to its source material. But it's also certainly not the worst war film out there (that probably goes to Windtalkers, The Green Berets, or any of the Dirty Dozen direct-to-TV sequels).
OT, if those are the worst war films you've seen, count yourself lucky. There are some real stinkers out there, and I'm not even taking into account the foreign ones. A lot of the recently-made Russian flicks are simply embarrassingly bad.
I think this is that French/French-Canadian production that centers around sound and literal restrained dancing (as in all of the performers are bound or handicapped in some manner). It's one of "those" artsy-fartsy things.
I liked it for Sam L, but that's about it. I find Tarantino to be completely overblown, even if you account for some truly amazing dialogue. The only one of his works that really lived up to my expectations was Reservoir Dogs.