Yea someone who runs away from an issue like this is not a good guy. Get your shit right

IsitWinterYet17A little simplistic to say good guy with a gun. He was a freaking cop who opted to do nothing and could have saved many lives. It said he arrived 30 seconds or a minute after the 4-5min shooting spree started, but stayed outside rather than doing his job and entering the building. He was previously a sheriff's deputy, then moved to school resource officer that is still employed by the sheriff's department.

Youre a douche trying to spin this into an argument for gun control.

zuesHold up... you want me to admit that guns are a problem in mass shootings? NO SHIT what else would be the problem is mass SHOOTINGS? bows and arrows? HAHAHA...

Guns don't cause mass shootings People wielding guns do. If we wanted to stop mass shootings we should just ban murder... why only focus on guns?

Thats it we've solved the problem!!!?? lets pass a bill to make murder illegal!!!

And you say I act childish...

So by your logic, because murders will still happen inevitably, we shouldn't have a law against murder?

Now that you've admitted that guns are part of the problem, what can we do to minimize guns from falling into the wrong hands in the future?

Erroneous on both accounts. Guns are NOT the problem. The incompetent American population wielding them, or lack there of is the problem.

To start; we can stop prescribing kids drugs at age 5. We can stop the Politically correct bullshit. we can stop pretending everyone is a winner. We can listen and diagnose kids with real mental illness. We can make bump stocks illegal (already in the works). We can put security guards in every school. We can educate and inform people about weapons and how to handle them correctly.

TheHamburglarAnd you say I act childish...

So by your logic, because murders will still happen inevitably, we shouldn't have a law against murder?

Now that you've admitted that guns are part of the problem, what can we do to minimize guns from falling into the wrong hands in the future?

onenerdykidI can tell that you're one of those people who thinks that less government will solve everything. Please.

It should be pretty clear that without government regulation, that businesses/banks would shit all over everything if given the chance if it improved their profitability, which history time and time again shows they do. The free market is a myth, it doesn't work.

If the government actually had the interest of the public/tax payers in mind, then yes government would be a very good thing. But as long as they put business interests ahead of public interest, there will always be a huge problem. And right now, that is exactly what the government is doing.

This entire argument is pretty much for less government. Business interests will always go ahead of public interests as business stands to gain a lot from a change beneficial to them, whereas consumer on aggregate lose more, but on an individual level lose very little and have no incentive to lobby the government. Therefore government should have less power.

Note: i said less government, not no government. Even Hayek supported some government.

Also more on topic, I purpose we establish a simple litmus test for these proposed regulations: would they have prevented this or other mass shootings?

Something like a training class, no it would not have stopped the killing, might have made it worse.

Waiting periods: nope

Banning AR-15's: nope would have just bought a different gun

I dont say this to be dismissive, but when people are discussing policies of how to prevent mass shootings, they seem so often to forget ask themselves if this policy would have actually stopped this shooting?

cool_nameI dont say this to be dismissive, but when people are discussing policies of how to prevent mass shootings, they seem so often to forget ask themselves if this policy would have actually stopped this shooting?

Perhaps not this shooting, but it would for sure reduce the number of shootings if people had to take a pilot's-license-level amount of training before being allowed to own a gun and yearly post-sale mental health checks and aptitude exams. This would certainly catch a lot of people and dissuade many would-be-shooters from obtaining a gun. There is enough sufficient evidence from around the globe to show that this does work.

And again, having healthcare more readily & easily available would also help our mental health problem that we clearly do have.

cool_nameThis entire argument is pretty much for less government. Business interests will always go ahead of public interests as business stands to gain a lot from a change beneficial to them, whereas consumer on aggregate lose more, but on an individual level lose very little and have no incentive to lobby the government. Therefore government should have less power.

Note: i said less government, not no government. Even Hayek supported some government.

Also more on topic, I purpose we establish a simple litmus test for these proposed regulations: would they have prevented this or other mass shootings?

Something like a training class, no it would not have stopped the killing, might have made it worse.

Waiting periods: nope

Banning AR-15's: nope would have just bought a different gun

I dont say this to be dismissive, but when people are discussing policies of how to prevent mass shootings, they seem so often to forget ask themselves if this policy would have actually stopped this shooting?

Nice to see some intelligence on here for once! Agree with pretty much everything written above. People become blind and blame this solely on weapons when ultimately its to a far greater magnitude.

onenerdykidPerhaps not this shooting, but it would for sure reduce the number of shootings if people had to take a pilot's-license-level amount of training before being allowed to own a gun and yearly post-sale mental health checks and aptitude exams. This would certainly catch a lot of people and dissuade many would-be-shooters from obtaining a gun. There is enough sufficient evidence from around the globe to show that this does work.

And again, having healthcare more readily & easily available would also help our mental health problem that we clearly do have.

It's odd how the rest of the world has guns, yet don't have these terrorist school shootings.

Israel used to be one of the most dangerous places in the world. EVERYONE there has a gun and a bomb shelter. They are also emerging as a technological phenom and economic super power. There is violence there (getting much better) but it's a much different degree of violence compared with what we're dealing with in America. The same is true with any other country.

Name another country that has as many school shootings as the USA?? This issue is segmented almost exclusively to the USA... But you can't tell me other countries citizen's don't own guns - the middle east is up to 50 guns per 100 residents.

That is why I think there is a clear mental health issue as opposed to a gun issue.

zuesIt's odd how the rest of the world has guns, yet don't have these terrorist school shootings.

Israel used to be one of the most dangerous places in the world. EVERYONE there has a gun and a bomb shelter. They are also emerging as a technological phenom and economic super power. There is violence there (getting much better) but it's a much different degree of violence compared with what we're dealing with in America. The same is true with any other country.

Name another country that has as many school shootings as the USA?? This issue is segmented almost exclusively to the USA... But you can't tell me other countries citizen's don't own guns - the middle east is up to 50 guns per 100 residents.

That is why I think there is a clear mental health issue as opposed to a gun issue.

But these other countries have way stricter gun laws with post-sale checks in place. Austria, where I live, is a perfect example of this. You can own hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc. but you need to pass mental health exams and aptitude tests pre-sale and post-sale. And if you fail these tests, you lose the right to own a firearm.

The USA is not alone with mental health problems. Just other countries deal with it better and put better safeguards in place concerning deadly weapons. I full agree with you that mental health issues are a main problem, but it's not an either or issue. It is both mental health and ease of access to guns. The ease at which people acquire deadly weapons in the USA is far too lenient.

The fact that these other countries don't have this problem is definitely linked to the ease (or not ease) at which guns are available. And there is a huge reason for why a gun is chosen over a knife or a pipe bomb. It is a far better weapon to use than a knife and it is far easier to get (or make) than explosives. It's a super efficient deadly weapon and it's easy to get.

Fix both of the problems, not just one.

onenerdykidBut these other countries have way stricter gun laws with post-sale checks in place. Austria, where I live, is a perfect example of this. You can own hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc. but you need to pass mental health exams and aptitude tests pre-sale and post-sale. And if you fail these tests, you lose the right to own a firearm.

The USA is not alone with mental health problems. Just other countries deal with it better and put better safeguards in place concerning deadly weapons. I full agree with you that mental health issues are a main problem, but it's not an either or issue. It is both mental health and ease of access to guns. The ease at which people acquire deadly weapons in the USA is far too lenient.

The fact that these other countries don't have this problem is definitely linked to the ease (or not ease) at which guns are available. And there is a huge reason for why a gun is chosen over a knife or a pipe bomb. It is a far better weapon to use than a knife and it is far easier to get (or make) than explosives. It's a super efficient deadly weapon and it's easy to get.

Fix both of the problems, not just one.

I just don't want to see these Safeguards slowly deteriorate my second amendment right which is ultimately what I can see happening.

zuesThat is why I think there is a clear mental health issue as opposed to a gun issue.

Can't it be both?

Not every gun death is a result of mental health issues.

Not all mental health issues result in someone shooting up a school or shooting another person.

Is it that difficult to acknowledge this?

Sure, mass shootings may generate more headlines, but what about when someone shoots another person because of a disagreement? Or bullying? Is that because they have mental health issues or because they're acting emotionally and have easy access to weapons?

.MASSHOLE.Can't it be both?

Not every gun death is a result of mental health issues.

Not all mental health issues result in someone shooting up a school or shooting another person.

Is it that difficult to acknowledge this?

Sure, mass shootings may generate more headlines, but what about when someone shoots another person because of a disagreement? Or bullying? Is that because they have mental health issues or because they're acting emotionally and have easy access to weapons?

And over 99% of gun owners don't murder people. Taking away peoples rights because a minority of people are violent is wrong and its exactly what liberals want. I responsibly own a pistol. I haven't killed anyone and I never want to.. You want me to give up my gun? Responsible people should be able to own guns, keeping them out of criminals hands is the hard part that I truly don't believe can be done regardless of restrictions passed

zuesI just don't want to see these Safeguards slowly deteriorate my second amendment right which is ultimately what I can see happening.

But these safeguards seem to be very fitting with a "well regulated militia" though. Just don't turn this into a slippery slope fallacy. Just because safeguards are put in place, the 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be eroded.

onenerdykidBut these safeguards seem to be very fitting with a "well regulated militia" though. Just don't turn this into a slippery slope fallacy. Just because safeguards are put in place, the 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be eroded.

Don't fucking tread on me bro.... Just kidding.

zuesAnd over 99% of gun owners don't murder people. Taking away peoples rights because a minority of people are violent is wrong and its exactly what liberals want. I responsibly own a pistol. I haven't killed anyone and I never want to.. You want me to give up my gun? Responsible people should be able to own guns, keeping them out of criminals hands is the hard part that I truly don't believe can be done regardless of restrictions passed

Did I ever say I'm advocating for people to give up guns?

Nope.

All I said is it's not just a mental health issue masquerading itself in the form of mass shootings.

There's an issue with the ease of access to weapons as AND a lack of access to mental healthcare in this country.

Just wondering when people will realize that regulation doesn't actually do anything

.MASSHOLE.Did I ever say I'm advocating for people to give up guns?

Nope.

All I said is it's not just a mental health issue masquerading itself in the form of mass shootings.

There's an issue with the ease of access to weapons as AND a lack of access to mental healthcare in this country.

You didn't say it but essentially you're advocating for it in the long run.

Just like states legalizing weed is the beginning of the end of the war on drugs, stricter gun regulation is the beginning of the end of the second amendment.

.MASSHOLE.Can't it be both?

Not every gun death is a result of mental health issues.

Not all mental health issues result in someone shooting up a school or shooting another person.

Is it that difficult to acknowledge this?

Sure, mass shootings may generate more headlines, but what about when someone shoots another person because of a disagreement? Or bullying? Is that because they have mental health issues or because they're acting emotionally and have easy access to weapons?

Conservatives want to solve this problem without taking away any 2A rights, but I think you're right, it needs to be both. Conservatives keep saying "we need to keep guns out of deranged individuals" and its like how? You think opening more mental institutes is going to stop that? Less guns is what will stop that. Mental health is a huge issue, it's not just mass shootings either, there are many different problems that are caused by mental health going unchecked.

We don't need to "ban guns" but I think our country needs to give up their semi-auto rifles, guns should only be used for hunting and self defense, you don't need a semi-auto rifle for self defense, get a defense shotgun or a handgun with hollow tips. Shooting at someone with an ar-15 in a building puts everyone in the building at risk, a shotgun or handgun are less likely to hit an unintended target. They safer, just as effective and reasonable.

The argument for ar-15s, semi-auto rifles, is over. The only reason people want them is to build and collect them, which is a fine hobby, but these weapons are causing so many problems in our county. 2A is outdated, nobody needs a semi-auto rifle, its for hobbyists and murders.

My question for gun owners: is it worth owning a semi-auto rifle for your own personal use if they kill so many people?

Conservatives want gun laws to stay the same so the millions of dollars the NRA pays them every year keeps coming in, and as more people buy guns the NRA makes more money too. Its a corrupt circle of politicians and millionaires that just want to make money, greed is holding back our country for being the best we can be. Its fucking bullshit. If you're a conservative and you support the NRA, you can sit on a flagpole.

zuesAnd over 99% of gun owners don't murder people. Taking away peoples rights because a minority of people are violent is wrong and its exactly what liberals want. I responsibly own a pistol. I haven't killed anyone and I never want to.. You want me to give up my gun? Responsible people should be able to own guns, keeping them out of criminals hands is the hard part that I truly don't believe can be done regardless of restrictions passed

Again, no one is asking you to give up your gun. What you are doing is called a red herring fallacy- you are leading the conversation down a different road that is not on the (current) table.

If people cannot pass mental health exams and aptitude tests, both pre and post sale, then they should not be allowed to own a deadly weapon. All of the good gun owners would not be affected by this, since by definition they would pass such tests.

I will 100% grant you that mental health is what is called a necessary condition- that means without it, you don't have the same event taking place. With proper mental health no one would go on a shooting rampage. But by that same token, arguably, no one would be murdering either (killing is different, especially for self defense). But we still put safeguards in place to prevent and guard against murder. We can't 100% make mental health issues go away, and we can't 100% make guns ago away. So let's find a solution that reasonably and rationally tackles both problems. We all keep our right to own guns, but we need to be WAY more educated about them and weed out people who should not be owning them.

zuesJust wondering when people will realize that regulation doesn't actually do anything

What is your definition of regulation?

zuesYou didn't say it but essentially you're advocating for it in the long run.

Just like states legalizing weed is the beginning of the end of the war on drugs, stricter gun regulation is the beginning of the end of the second amendment.

No, no I'm not at all.

And that's your problem.

As onenerdykid said, you're going for the slippery slope fallacy.

You're not going to get rid of the 2nd amendment, not in our life team at least.

But that doesn't mean curbing certain aspects of it isn't needed.

**This post was edited on Feb 23rd 2018 at 2:55:19pm

zuesJust wondering when people will realize that regulation doesn't actually do anything

Really? What about drivers licenses? Pilot licenses and the FAA? Medical licenses? Regulating what can be dumped into public water via the EPA? Insider trading and the SEC?

Talk about a stupid fucking statement.

The war on drugs is the problem!!!

So you're saying because all those exist people cannot circumvent it in any way right? What world do you live in?

Insider trading in the SEC?? haha are you kidding? Don't pay any mind to Enron or WorldCom... What about Volkwagon?

Sure regulation exists, but do people obey it? absolutelyfuckingnot.

.MASSHOLE.Really? What about drivers licenses? Pilot licenses and the FAA? Medical licenses? Regulating what can be dumped into public water via the EPA? Insider trading and the SEC?

Talk about a stupid fucking statement.

yea

zuesSo you're saying because all those exist people cannot circumvent it in any way right? What world do you live in?

Insider trading in the SEC?? haha are you kidding? Don't pay any mind to Enron or WorldCom... What about Volkwagon?

Sure regulation exists, but do people obey it? absolutelyfuckingnot.

Alright, now you're just moving the goalposts.

First it was what do regulations do? Now it's well people break the law anyway, so let's just do away with them all!

That's a really shortsighted (and stupid) approach to the whole idea of laws and regulations. Should we just do away with all laws since people break them anyway?

Let me pose it to you this way, would you rather live in a world where regulations doesn't exist?

How about a world without driver, medical, dental, or pilot licenses?

How about a world where your drinking water can be contaminated with chemicals? Or your air can be filled with smog and acid rain?

**This post was edited on Feb 23rd 2018 at 3:18:04pm

**This post was edited on Feb 23rd 2018 at 3:21:01pm

No i went off on a tangent and you're right. There need to be laws put into place. Most people on this planet are inherently good and will obey the laws as long as they are reasonable. But you have the inherently evil people that won't regardless.... If stricter gun laws help to prevent murder i'm all for it.

.MASSHOLE.Alright, now you're just moving the goalposts.

First it was what do regulations do? Now it's well people break the law anyway, so let's just do away with them all!

Those were just a few examples.

Let me pose it to you this way, would you rather live in a world where that doesn't exist?

How about a world without driver, medical, dental, or pilot licenses?

How about a world where your drinking water can be contaminated with chemicals? Or your air can be filled with smog and acid rain?

zuesNo i went off on a tangent and you're right. There need to be laws put into place. Most people on this planet are inherently good and will obey the laws as long as they are reasonable. But you have the inherently evil people that won't regardless.... If stricter gun laws help to prevent murder i'm all for it.

Honestly I don't think it's that simple and I think it extends much further than guns --- thats my point.

onenerdykidPerhaps not this shooting, but it would for sure reduce the number of shootings if people had to take a pilot's-license-level amount of training before being allowed to own a gun and yearly post-sale mental health checks and aptitude exams. This would certainly catch a lot of people and dissuade many would-be-shooters from obtaining a gun. There is enough sufficient evidence from around the globe to show that this does work.

And again, having healthcare more readily & easily available would also help our mental health problem that we clearly do have.

A pilots license level of amount of training seems way overboard, but ya it likely would reduce gun ownership. How much would it reduce murders becomes the next question, and how much does it restrict a persons ability to defend themselves, in particular people from poor neighborhoods who likely would not have the means nor the time to pass such an onerous test, despite likely being in more need of protection.

Clearly a balance needs to be struck, I don't think US should have less regulations, but I am not as sure about more (though I did hear plans to ban bump stocks, which only makes sense given that fully automatic weapons are banned)

I also think the mass shooting/school shooting problem is a very different problem from the problem of all the other gun deaths, I dont expect a one-size all solution would exist.

zuesThats it we've solved the problem!!!?? lets pass a bill to make murder illegal!!!

So while the law of making murder illegal it does Reduce it but does not make it non existent.

We all understand it.

Why dont we make it law if you want a centerfire, semiautomatic weapon you need a federal accepted license like a drivers license? You would have a thri year check up to assure your competence and renewal of said license.

is that too crazy of a idea??

theabortionatorI'm absolutely okay with us losing our power as one of the strongest nations. Honestly, fuck our empire. Let's fix America before trying to run the world, and I'd like us to stop running the world regardless.

As far as guns, nothing will ever change because rabble rabble dont take my freedoms people are delusional as fuck.

You misunderstood what I meant about USA. I mean to say that our ability to be a force of positive change will be diminished beyond repair if we as citizens do not take responsibility for our nation.

You can hold whatever opinion you want which is one of the best qualities in America. But to say that you don't care if we lose our status as a super power, to me, is a sign that you don't fully accept the responsibility that comes with that power (see Uncle Ben for more details).

USA citizens have more ability to affect positive change in the world than citizens of most other nations. Our freedoms are much more abundant than many nations which I feel would be hard to argue.

I am saying is that we have an inherited responsibility to the world to capitalize on our good fortune (as opposed to a citizen of say, Haiti)

On a side note, it seems you have very passionate opinions, I hope you put your energy to good use in your life.

CambrewskiYou misunderstood what I meant about USA. I mean to say that our ability to be a force of positive change will be diminished beyond repair if we as citizens do not take responsibility for our nation.

You can hold whatever opinion you want which is one of the best qualities in America. But to say that you don't care if we lose our status as a super power, to me, is a sign that you don't fully accept the responsibility that comes with that power (see Uncle Ben for more details).

USA citizens have more ability to affect positive change in the world than citizens of most other nations. Our freedoms are much more abundant than many nations which I feel would be hard to argue.

I am saying is that we have an inherited responsibility to the world to capitalize on our good fortune (as opposed to a citizen of say, Haiti)

On a side note, it seems you have very passionate opinions, I hope you put your energy to good use in your life.

Yeah, we've had such a fucking positive impact on ever country we're involved in. We've done some major damage to countries, we're involved in countries we haven't needed to be for 60 years, we're an empire, and that shit doesn't fly with me.

I just can't get down with us spending all this money to maintain this empire, especially with some of the fucked up things we've done. Also on NA terms our drug war has fucked up latin america, but we give 0 fucks. We've fucked the middle east, but we don't care about that. We still have all these troops in germany and japan etc for what?

We never leave a country we've occupied and that's fucked. If Russia tried to make a base in new mexico we'd shit a brick. But us having bases in every fucking country is totally cool, because we're used to it. We aren't heroes, our empire building isn't saving the day. I'm not anti America, but being against our bullshit empire isn't anti American imo either.

This issue doesn't make me mad, I'm not butthurt, but I'm just not feeling what we're doing.

Idk. I get that we've been doing it for almost 100 years, but I don't think it makes it right. Shitty unpopular upinion, but still my feels.

slush8'Banning a certain firearm or certain size magazine might stop a few mass shootings, yeah. But at what cost?'

I mean what! Read what you have just written, then go back and read it again until you get some sense of morality. If you think people's right to a certain gun trumps children's and innocent people's safety you may need to rethink your mindset.

Sandyhook, Pulse, Las Vegas, Columbine, Parkland were all carried out using AR-15s

Mental Health and AR-15s. There's a link here. Spend money on mental healthcare and ban AR-15s

The same thing can be carried out with a stereotypical hunting rifle. Both the "scary" AR-15 and basic hunting rifles shoot the same type of round (. 223/5.56/.308/.450/. 22). Both rifles also have 30 round mags. Hell, there's AR-15 used in shootings because they're plastic and cheaper than a full wood hunting rifle. Oh, and both of them are used for hunting. Those sick fucks could take a $5 Walmart knife and do the same mass killings. It's about the mental health not the weapon.

I do agree with the mental health point. Gun control should be focused around the mental health of gun buyers.

cool_nameA pilots license level of amount of training seems way overboard, but ya it likely would reduce gun ownership. How much would it reduce murders becomes the next question, and how much does it restrict a persons ability to defend themselves, in particular people from poor neighborhoods who likely would not have the means nor the time to pass such an onerous test, despite likely being in more need of protection.

Clearly a balance needs to be struck, I don't think US should have less regulations, but I am not as sure about more (though I did hear plans to ban bump stocks, which only makes sense given that fully automatic weapons are banned)

I also think the mass shooting/school shooting problem is a very different problem from the problem of all the other gun deaths, I dont expect a one-size all solution would exist.

Whenever the loss of human life is inherently stake, then there needs to overboard training. Guns are purpose built deadly weapons- that's what they are and why they are different than cars and deaths related to car accidents (that's not a point you are directly making, just putting that out there). As such, there should be far greater respect, education, training, and mental health checks in place to ensure they don't fall into the wrong hands. We can do a far better job at this because almost all of these recent mass shootings were carried out by responsible, law abiding gun owners. Something needs to be done with what constitutes "responsible" and "law abiding" because it is far too lax.

cool_nameA pilots license level of amount of training seems way overboard, but ya it likely would reduce gun ownership. How much would it reduce murders becomes the next question, and how much does it restrict a persons ability to defend themselves, in particular people from poor neighborhoods who likely would not have the means nor the time to pass such an onerous test, despite likely being in more need of protection.

.

Why not have different levels of gun ownership, that way if you can't afford to take whatever courses needed you can still own some sort of firearm to protect your home. Chances are if you can't afford the courses/tests you arn't going to be buying an AR anyway. Level 1 and 2 would be generally pretty easy for somebody to achieve, and as you go up the more tests/courses you would need.

Level 1: Singleshot

Level 2: bolt, pump, lever action rifles

Level 3: Revolvers

Level 4: Semiautomatic rifles/handguns

Level 5: Fully Auto Rifles

(this list is just a quick thought)

YoungNickolasThe same thing can be carried out with a stereotypical hunting rifle. Both the "scary" AR-15 and basic hunting rifles shoot the same type of round (. 223/5.56/.308/.450/. 22). Both rifles also have 30 round mags. Hell, there's AR-15 used in shootings because they're plastic and cheaper than a full wood hunting rifle. Oh, and both of them are used for hunting. Those sick fucks could take a $5 Walmart knife and do the same mass killings. It's about the mental health not the weapon.

I do agree with the mental health point. Gun control should be focused around the mental health of gun buyers.

That kid would be the greatest fighter of all time if he was able to kill 17 people. I'm getting tired of the argument that other things can be used to kill, therefore there's no point in gun control. You could use a wrench to kill someone. It's not the same thing and that argument just diverges into a load of shit.

There's no need to own a 30 round magazine. You definetly do not need that for hunting. You don't need a fore grip or bumpstock for hunting.

While none of those things kill people, it definetly adds ease of use, which what all the untrained crazies use.

I think weapon modification and parts that trickle down from the military should not be available to the civilian market.

LonelyThat kid would be the greatest fighter of all time if he was able to kill 17 people. I'm getting tired of the argument that other things can be used to kill, therefore there's no point in gun control. You could use a wrench to kill someone. It's not the same thing and that argument just diverges into a load of shit.

There's no need to own a 30 round magazine. You definetly do not need that for hunting. You don't need a fore grip or bumpstock for hunting.

While none of those things kill people, it definetly adds ease of use, which what all the untrained crazies use.

I think weapon modification and parts that trickle down from the military should not be available to the civilian market.

T R I G G E R E D assumptions were made. Look up the Chinese train station massacre... Two guys with cleavers killed 29 and injured 100 more in a train station. I agree that mag capacities should be changed. The more times a shooter has to realod, the more chances there are to intervene in a shooting. I never said there's no point in gun control either. You definetly need a foregrip for some types of hunting. For example when people hunt for hogs, they shoot multiple rounds in a row to take down as many of the invasive species as they can. A foregrip allows for fast realignment of the reticle. Most of those "untrained crazies" use them because they are made of plastic and are cheap as hell. So your also saying that scopes, flash hiders, compensators, rail guards, iron sights should not be allowed since they are based off of military counter parts? Please research your thoughts and ideas before posting nonsense.

YoungNickolasT R I G G E R E D assumptions were made. Look up the Chinese train station massacre... Two guys with cleavers killed 29 and injured 100 more in a train station. I agree that mag capacities should be changed. The more times a shooter has to realod, the more chances there are to intervene in a shooting. I never said there's no point in gun control either. You definetly need a foregrip for some types of hunting. For example when people hunt for hogs, they shoot multiple rounds in a row to take down as many of the invasive species as they can. A foregrip allows for fast realignment of the reticle. Most of those "untrained crazies" use them because they are made of plastic and are cheap as hell. So your also saying that scopes, flash hiders, compensators, rail guards, iron sights should not be allowed since they are based off of military counter parts? Please research your thoughts and ideas before posting nonsense.

Hi, not triggered gum owner here. Want to give me a stat on how common mass stabbings are in the US? Compared to mass shootings? How about the small percentage of the population that hog hunts.

Only thing that triggered me was the stupid "object x kills people" argument. Pillows can kill people, but we don't need to talk about controlling them because the amount of killing done with pillows is statistically insignificant compared to guns.

Besides scopes and rails why would you need a suppressor, or a flash hides or a myriad of other devices.

I've never met another hunter who really enjoyed hunting with a fore grip, acog scope, laser, and flash hider. You don't need it.

If using a knife was easy, all crazies would do it.

**This post was edited on Feb 25th 2018 at 9:25:37pm

LonelyHi, not triggered gum owner here. Want to give me a stat on how common mass stabbings are in the US? Compared to mass shootings? How about the small percentage of the population that hog hunts.

Only thing that triggered me was the stupid "object x kills people" argument. Pillows can kill people, but we don't need to talk about controlling them because the amount of killing done with pillows is statistically insignificant compared to guns.

Besides scopes and rails why would you need a suppressor, or a flash hides or a myriad of other devices.

I've never met another hunter who really enjoyed hunting with a fore grip, acog scope, laser, and flash hider. You don't need it.

If using a knife was easy, all crazies would do it.

**This post was edited on Feb 25th 2018 at 9:25:37pm

You're still putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned suppressors(whole other topic) and I never mentioned lasers. Since you get all your knowledge from COD... You're assuming that a foregrip automatically add +30 accuracy to a school shooter. Also, please quote my "object x kills people"... A gun won't do a damn thing to anybody unless it's in the hands of person. Since you like to extrapolate, that shoulda been a given.

YoungNickolasYou're still putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned suppressors(whole other topic) and I never mentioned lasers. Since you get all your knowledge from COD... You're assuming that a foregrip automatically add +30 accuracy to a school shooter. Also, please quote my "object x kills people"... A gun won't do a damn thing to anybody unless it's in the hands of person. Since you like to extrapolate, that shoulda been a given.

You were the one who said just as much killing could be carried out with a five dollar hunting knife, and that a fore grip was neccesary to control recoil lol.

Why would you ever need to hunt with an ar? Especially when they are usually chambered in 223.

Why would you need any sort of tactical attachment? I'm not being triggered, I genuinely want to know.

Home defense?

Hunting?

Why is a hand gun not sufficient to defend your house. Why is a hunting rifle not sufficient for hunting. I don't hunt with semi, and I don't know anyone who does, besides a friend who is a small pest exterminator.

The thing that upsets me the most is not the guns or the gym debate itself, it's that no matter what anyone's beliefs are, the government could give less of a shit. If it was in their favor to take away guns they would have done it already. They don't care about you or me or anyone else.

I would have no issue with it being more difficult to get guns, and increasing the penalty if you get them illegally. I already think it's to easy to get a driver's licence, and that's still easier to get an easily modifiable rifle.

LonelyWhy would you ever need to hunt with an ar? Especially when they are usually chambered in 223.

I don't hunt with semi, and I don't know anyone who does, besides a friend who is a small pest exterminator.

I wanted to jump in and answer these two questions. An AR is absolutely, hands-down, the best predator (coyote, fox, etc) hunting rifle there is. Almost every serious coyote hunter uses an AR. It is accurate, semi-automatic, and capable of taking several animals out of a pack. .223 is the ideal caliber for predator hunting as it can reach way out there, is accurate (if quality ammunition or reloads are used), cheap, and small enough that it does not damage the fur too much.

Regarding .223 as a hunting round, it is the preferred round for predators, vermin (think groundhogs), and other smaller game. I've personally taken a deer with a .223. While the deer was a clean, quick kill, it is not my preferred deer caliber (I usually use a 30-06).

To answer your question about semi-autos and hunting, beyond what I stated above regarding predators, you're largely correct. Most hunters use a bolt-action rifle for big game hunting, myself included. Semi-auto is all but a must when hunting waterfowl, although this is done with shotguns, not rifles. I've put thousands upon thousands of rounds through my Benelli semi-auto, and can't imagine going back to hunting waterfowl with a pump-action (how I started).

iFlipI wanted to jump in and answer these two questions. An AR is absolutely, hands-down, the best predator (coyote, fox, etc) hunting rifle there is. Almost every serious coyote hunter uses an AR. It is accurate, semi-automatic, and capable of taking several animals out of a pack. .223 is the ideal caliber for predator hunting as it can reach way out there, is accurate (if quality ammunition or reloads are used), cheap, and small enough that it does not damage the fur too much.

Regarding .223 as a hunting round, it is the preferred round for predators, vermin (think groundhogs), and other smaller game. I've personally taken a deer with a .223. While the deer was a clean, quick kill, it is not my preferred deer caliber (I usually use a 30-06).

To answer your question about semi-autos and hunting, beyond what I stated above regarding predators, you're largely correct. Most hunters use a bolt-action rifle for big game hunting, myself included. Semi-auto is all but a must when hunting waterfowl, although this is done with shotguns, not rifles. I've put thousands upon thousands of rounds through my Benelli semi-auto, and can't imagine going back to hunting waterfowl with a pump-action (how I started).

That's kinda what I was getting at. My buddy who's an exterminator as a cheap bushmaster and swears by it.

LonelyYou were the one who said just as much killing could be carried out with a five dollar hunting knife, and that a fore grip was neccesary to control recoil lol.

Why would you ever need to hunt with an ar? Especially when they are usually chambered in 223.

Why would you need any sort of tactical attachment? I'm not being triggered, I genuinely want to know.

Home defense?

Hunting?

Why is a hand gun not sufficient to defend your house. Why is a hunting rifle not sufficient for hunting. I don't hunt with semi, and I don't know anyone who does, besides a friend who is a small pest exterminator.

The thing that upsets me the most is not the guns or the gym debate itself, it's that no matter what anyone's beliefs are, the government could give less of a shit. If it was in their favor to take away guns they would have done it already. They don't care about you or me or anyone else.

I would have no issue with it being more difficult to get guns, and increasing the penalty if you get them illegally. I already think it's to easy to get a driver's licence, and that's still easier to get an easily modifiable rifle.

I apologize for the rude comments. I never said a foregrip is necessary, just gave an example of its use. I will try to answer each of your points. A lot of hunting is done with an AR-15, people use them to snag coyotes, hogs, and a lot of fast animals. The bolt action is generally used for deer, moose, elk. The reason an AR-15 works well with fast animals is because you can fire quick shots in succession just incase you miss.

Pistols are good home defense for some people. They are also very inaccurate. Since the front sight and back sight are so close together, a shift in stance can magnify the inaccuracy and cause someone to miss by a lot. AR-15 are more accurate close range because the distance between the front sight and back sight is larger.

AR-15's are hunting rifles. They may not look like your stereotypical full wood bolt action. Look up long barrel AR-15, those are gerally chambered with win. Mag. And are very accurate. You can also get an AR-15 chamber for .22 to hunt rodents.

I agree with your point about gun control. I want it to happen. But the government doesn't care, just like you said. Please let me know if I can clear up any of my points.

**This post was edited on Feb 25th 2018 at 10:38:05pm

**This post was edited on Feb 25th 2018 at 10:40:53pm

LonelyWhy would you ever need to hunt with an ar? Especially when they are usually chambered in 223.

Are you saying .223 is too big or too small to hunt with?

I’m left. I think most republicans these days are fucking idiots. Especially anyone that still backs Trump.

Yet I own numerous guns. Have a CCP. Shit, I own a fucking Mack 10 and an Oozi.

Guns are not the problem. It’s people.

Make them harder to get. I’m all for extensive checks and crack down and all the left shit. Why? Because I can still get one. Why? Because I’m not a kook and will pass the tests. Also the bad guys will get guns and shoot people no mater what the laws are.

If you're not a liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you're older you just have no intelligence.

SkiBum.I’m left. I think most republicans these days are fucking idiots. Especially anyone that still backs Trump.

Yet I own numerous guns. Have a CCP. Shit, I own a fucking Mack 10 and an Oozi.

Guns are not the problem. It’s people.

Make them harder to get. I’m all for extensive checks and crack down and all the left shit. Why? Because I can still get one. Why? Because I’m not a kook and will pass the tests. Also the bad guys will get guns and shoot people no mater what the laws are.

Yes i agree with what you've said 100% and it's just the simple truth. Just look how easy it is to get drugs.

SkiBum.I’m left. I think most republicans these days are fucking idiots. Especially anyone that still backs Trump.

Yet I own numerous guns. Have a CCP. Shit, I own a fucking Mack 10 and an Oozi.

Guns are not the problem. It’s people.

Make them harder to get. I’m all for extensive checks and crack down and all the left shit. Why? Because I can still get one. Why? Because I’m not a kook and will pass the tests. Also the bad guys will get guns and shoot people no mater what the laws are.

That sounds too radical for me, to be honest. If it's constitutionally allowed than you don't have the right to claim that there should be a discrimination here!

Garbo thread

the further left you go, you get your guns back... lmaoo

Neo-Lib anti-gun rhetoric is shit, yes there should be heftier background checks to get a gun, but in the end if the gun ban bill that will literally never pass ever happens it will just create problems with illegally purchased weapons and be a whole other fucking worse problems. But its ur damn right to chose if you want a gun or not, just set up strict background checks in a way that nobody with intentions of harming themselves or others can get a gun, maybe psych evals required and very thorough training required. In the military they go through full instruction on how to assemble, disassemble, and clean and safely use a weapon before they can even go to the shooting range. and I think that civilians should need something like that before they are able to buy a weapon at all.

i’m a liberal and I own an AR-15 with multiple 40 round mags AMA