Connecticut school shooting

First, I have to ask: does anyone here except me have vast experience with firearms? Pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc? I went to the shooting range with a buddy once or my dad has a 22 doesn't count.

JaysonAych wrote:

Yeah, the car analogies, swimming pool analogies, and other similar bullshit don't apply at all. This is not a debate about gun carelessness or gun flashiness. It's a debate about gun violence. Intentional acts of lifetaking and what can be done to curtail it. Yes, a car can be dangerous if driven carelessly, but we're not talking about a car accident. We're talking about people intentionally massacring groups of people. There aren't weekly stories of groups of people intentionally mowed down with a 458 Italia because the driver couldn't take his mother's bullshit anymore and he snapped, or some sort of drug deal went horribly wrong. Leather and spoilers on a car isn't like adding a drum magazine.

Those analogies weren’t trying to justify gun violence, they were to show that guns are the only inanimate objects of the lot that take 100% of the blame.

JaysonAych wrote:The irony with the car analogies is that cars are HEAVILY regulated items, that must be designed to specific standards of crashworthiness, equipped with all manner of safety equipment from airbags to stability control systems, given specific bumper heights and bonnet heights for pedestrian safety, with mandates regarding their fuel efficiency and what have you. And they must be meticulously licensed, registered, insured, and titled all at a not-insignificant cost, and you must follow certain rules when operating them in public, even if they have that high-output engine, and if you don't follow those rules, the government will fine you, imprison you, and take your license and/or your car away.

Guns also have laws, man. What makes you think otherwise? You break the rules with your gun, they come take it away and/or put you in jail, fines, etc., just like cars. Where I live, you can’t hunt with a rifle, you can’t fire a gun within city limits, you can’t fire a gun within the county, you can’t CCW near a school or any city buildings, you can’t do a lot of things. You break the rules, you get busted.

Guns are also HEAVILY regulated items that must be designed to a specific standard of safety and equipped with multiple safety devices either internally and/or externally. When you hear on the news that someone shot himself or herself while cleaning a gun, it’s bullshit. He or she was careless and is looking for an excuse. Some guns have external safeties that completely disable the thing, and some they’re all internal to ensure the firing pin cannot move unless the trigger is pulled.

They are, by design, EXTREMELY safe machines. I built an AR-15 in my basement from parts. When was the last time you took one apart? Do you know how they work? I do.

JaysonAych wrote:But really, we should all be able to strap AR-15s on our backs with high-capacity magazines and carry them around without the government sticking their dicks into everything.

I am not sure what you’re getting at with this statement, but I don’t recall supporting this at all. There is a time and place for an AR-15 to be used. I also believe that an AR-15 is a little much for personal protection in most environments. Personal protection goes beyond a home invader in a rural environment, to maybe a farmer who is having wolf problems attaching his or her livestock. AR-15s also come in multiple calibers; a 9mm AR would be ideal for a woman living on her own, IMO. However, don’t be so naive that because where YOU live it seems impractical, that doesn’t mean it is for everyone.

This is my I am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and – for the most part – anti religion. Another subject for another day.

JaysonAych wrote:The "knives and bombs kill people too" arguments are also bunk, and actually go against the entire "we need guns" argument in the first place. If the knives are just as deadly, why do we need the guns again? No, there's a reason gun control is center stage in the news right now and not knife control. Those Chinese kids that were cut last Friday will be seeing their next birthdays. It's just not the same thing at all. And bombs? That requires knowledge, time, and purchasing of materials that make you look pretty damn suspicious when purchased in large quantities. It's too much work, too hard to hide, and most people don't even bother. Some guys got lucky once almost 20 years ago with the Murrah building bombing, and no one's done anything like that since.

We NEED guns because guns are already a part of our life/society. There’s no going back from it now. Did you read the Holmes article I posted, about how he went to the only theatre within 20 miles of him that DIDN’T allow CCW? Knives are deadly, of course, but don't bring a knife to a gun fight. If the bad guys have guns, I want a gun.

My argument was, if you could magically make all guns disappear tomorrow, people would still kill each other, just by other means. It’s been happening for thousands of years. And why are we hearing about gun control? I already mentioned that: guns take the blame for when PEOPLE use them irresponsibly.

JaysonAych wrote:So just to be clear, the previous assault weapon ban wasn't much of a ban at all because it didn't actually ban assault weapons. And it's surprising that the completely ineffective assault weapon ban that still allowed people to buy assault weapons didn't solve anything? No wonder it didn't work! Saying any new legislation wouldn't work because the old one didn't doesn't really mean much because the old one didn't do anything. We'll have to see what the proposed bans actually are looking to ban to make that determination.

I agree with your last sentence. Either they stop the legality of them completely or they should do nothing. I am for the latter. Doing it half ass does nothing. In fact, even talking about it sells more guns and accessories than anything. For example, the most popular type of 30 round magazine for the AR-15 is called a PMag, made by Magpul Industries. I implore you to find one online right now. Find me an online dealer than has them in stock for under $20 (anything higher than that and a place is simply price gouging). If you do, post the link so I can buy some. Talking about another AWB puts people into panic mode and sells more AR-15s and accessories than anything.

If they do another AWB, a $900 AR will be worth $2,000-2,500. If they ban them completely, they will probably be worth $5,000-$10,000. Time will tell.

JaysonAych wrote:I'm in agreement on nearly all of those sentiments (however, if it takes days to get the check done, then it takes days. Taking a few days to thoroughly check some databases to be sure a gun buyer isn't crazy or a criminal is no big deal whatsoever). Outright banning guns is not only unfair to all the safe and responsible gun owners that are in the vast majority, it's just not a realistic solution, but there are steps that can be taken to make an awful situation more survivable. And that's really all that can be done. Minimize the damage that the crazies can do. If Adam Lanza had to stop to reload more often due to a smaller magazine, then maybe one more child would have managed to get away or maybe a teacher would have had an opening to tackle his skinny ass. If there was a law stating you must be licensed and put into a database that closely monitors your criminal and health backgrounds to own a gun and are required by law to put weapons in a gun safe when not in use so unlicensed people don't get their hands on them, maybe Adam's mom would have been much more aware of the liabilities of making them accessible to her son and he would have never retrieved them on his own.

And far better mental healthcare is completely necessary. For both Adam and his mom, because as stories keep coming out, it sounds like she had some problems of her own that led to Adam going down the path he did. Removing the stigmas and the cost barriers to mental healthcare is going to be of the utmost importance, far more important in the long run than any short term band-aid related to gun restrictions. It's a shame that this part of things doesn't seem to be getting the attention it needs in the media.

There are so many issues that need to be addressed here and simply going after the guns is unrealistic and, frankly, unfair. The sad thing is, that of most all of these tragedies, in hindsight, it’s always so clear why it happened. Lanza’s mom should not have been allowed to buy a gun. The fact that she lived with a mentally unstable person should have come up on the check. That is a problem. James Holmes should never have been able to get a gun. He was seeing a psychiatrist (and even told the psychiatrist he wanted to kill people) which should have come up on a red-flag.

The media is also to blame for this… all these news companies try so hard to one-up each other it ends up in a downward spiral. Do you remember the names of the Columbine shooters? I do: Harris and Clebould [sp?]. Do you remember the names of any of the victims? I don’t. The media puts these sick fucks in such a bright spot-light, other sick fucks want to get in it. I would be willing to bet if the media never started coverage on any of these shootings, they’d decline dramatically. Hell, even Newtown has had enough of the media already and it’s not even been a week yet.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/newtown-residents-ready-step-media-glare-100627069.html

Upgrade the system, don’t downgrade the guns.

So what if you know more about guns than the rest of us? All that means is you don't have an impartial opinion.

Noone is saying if you take away the guns all the crime will go away. We are saying if you take away the assault rifles and automatic weapons, nutjobs wont kill 30 people in one sitting every other week.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:So what if you know more about guns than the rest of us? All that means is you don't have an impartial opinion.

Noone is saying if you take away the guns all the crime will go away. We are saying if you take away the assault rifles and automatic weapons, nutjobs wont kill 30 people in one sitting every other week.

To be more correct, it will be harder for a nut job to kill 30 people in one day. If said nut job is resourceful enough though he/she will find a gun that they feel will do the job and likely an illegal gun bought from some ahole on the streets. Yes, it will probably take more time and effort as result and maybe the nutjob will either reconsider what they planned to do or will be caught by the police before hand.

But most of these mass shootings are probably done by people with legally owned guns and more on an impulse than with deep planning.

IMO most gun murder though is probably bad guy vs bad guy then probably spouse vs spouse, neighbour vs neighbour and employee vs employer. Very few are probably total stranger vs another stranger.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:So what if you know more about guns than the rest of us? All that means is you don't have an impartial opinion.

My opinions are educated. More-so than yours. The fact I'm educated on guns means I can be more impartial, change this don't change that type of thing. I’ve stated many times in this thread where I think things should change and I am not going to waste my time stating them again.

All of the stuff I’ve written and all of the articles I’ve posted and that’s all you have? Okay.

I'm surrounded by guns, i live in the south in a military town.

I don't own a single gun, i've never really had a reason or desire to own one.

But feel free to own guns, i see nothing wrong with gun ownership.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Noone is saying if you take away the guns all the crime will go away. We are saying if you take away the assault rifles and automatic weapons, nutjobs wont kill 30 people in one sitting every other week.

Can't we just take away the nutjobs?

You can't take away guns that are already in existence, you can ban the sales of them to law abiding citizens. But criminals don't follow the rules, hence why they are called criminals.

If everyone is defenseless against guns in a mall, school, movie theatre, etc. it doesn't matter if it's an "assault rifle" or a 6 shooter hand gun, you can just keep reloading.

1300ZUK wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Noone is saying if you take away the guns all the crime will go away. We are saying if you take away the assault rifles and automatic weapons, nutjobs wont kill 30 people in one sitting every other week.

Can't we just take away the nutjobs?

You can't take away guns that are already in existence, you can ban the sales of them to law abiding citizens. But criminals don't follow the rules, hence why they are called criminals.

If everyone is defenseless against guns in a mall, school, movie theatre, etc. it doesn't matter if it's an "assault rifle" or a 6 shooter hand gun, you can just keep reloading.

Criminals use illegal guns and i'm not saying an assault weapon ban would do anything about that. But, almost all of these massacres are done using legally owned guns, either purchased by the wacko themselves or someone close to them.

Talon wrote:

JaysonAych wrote:

Yeah, the car analogies, swimming pool analogies, and other similar bullshit don't apply at all. This is not a debate about gun carelessness or gun flashiness. It's a debate about gun violence. Intentional acts of lifetaking and what can be done to curtail it. Yes, a car can be dangerous if driven carelessly, but we're not talking about a car accident. We're talking about people intentionally massacring groups of people. There aren't weekly stories of groups of people intentionally mowed down with a 458 Italia because the driver couldn't take his mother's bullshit anymore and he snapped, or some sort of drug deal went horribly wrong. Leather and spoilers on a car isn't like adding a drum magazine.

Those analogies weren’t trying to justify gun violence, they were to show that guns are the only inanimate objects of the lot that take 100% of the blame.

And I was pointing out that the analogies for these other inanimate objects couldn't be more apples-and-oranges to the discussion. Cars and pools don't get blamed because we're talking about accidents in those cases, and people aren't willfully using swimming pools to commit violence against innocent bystanders. Unlike a car, or a swimming pool, or even a knife, a gun's entire raison d'etre as a tool is to destroy something. It could be something fun and recreational like a clay pigeon or a paper target or a soda can or an old abandoned car. It could be for taking out wild animals that are killing your livestock or for hunting. It could be used for necessary defense like against an enemy soldier or someone invading your home to kill you. Or it could be against something entirely different like a 7-year old girl's face or someone enjoying a Batman movie. Regardless of the usage, legitimate or otherwise, the gun's entire purpose is to destroy something. You can't drive it somewhere or transport goods in it, you can't use it for surgery or food preparation. It's there to put a hole in something that didn't have a hole in it before with the intent of destroying it. That's why blame falls on guns so much, right or wrong. And if we've decided as a culture that it's okay for people to have a tool like that for recreation and defense, we need to do more to be sure that people who are irresponsible and will use that tool to harm others can't get their hands on one, and if they do, to minimize the damage that's done.

Talon wrote:

JaysonAych wrote:But really, we should all be able to strap AR-15s on our backs with high-capacity magazines and carry them around without the government sticking their dicks into everything.

I am not sure what you’re getting at with this statement, but I don’t recall supporting this at all.

You didn't, but there was a lot of false analogies throughout the thread about, "well why don't we ban cars if people die in cars," along with arguments against limiting things that make civilian-use assault rifles more deadly, so I was being smart-assed and reactionary about that, but the statement was not directed toward you. As a matter of fact, I really didn't intend for my post to be directed so much toward you, and I apologize for it coming across that way. It wasn't my intent. A lot of the types of things throughout the thread in other people's posts that I wanted to comment on, however, were in your post so I referred to it out of convenience, but I didn't mean it to be anything directed toward you and you only. I'm sorry about that.

Talon wrote:

JaysonAych wrote:The "knives and bombs kill people too" arguments are also bunk, and actually go against the entire "we need guns" argument in the first place. If the knives are just as deadly, why do we need the guns again? No, there's a reason gun control is center stage in the news right now and not knife control. Those Chinese kids that were cut last Friday will be seeing their next birthdays. It's just not the same thing at all. And bombs? That requires knowledge, time, and purchasing of materials that make you look pretty damn suspicious when purchased in large quantities. It's too much work, too hard to hide, and most people don't even bother. Some guys got lucky once almost 20 years ago with the Murrah building bombing, and no one's done anything like that since.

We NEED guns because guns are already a part of our life/society. There’s no going back from it now. Did you read the Holmes article I posted, about how he went to the only theatre within 20 miles of him that DIDN’T allow CCW? Knives are deadly, of course, but don't bring a knife to a gun fight. If the bad guys have guns, I want a gun.

My argument was, if you could magically make all guns disappear tomorrow, people would still kill each other, just by other means. It’s been happening for thousands of years. And why are we hearing about gun control? I already mentioned that: guns take the blame for when PEOPLE use them irresponsibly.

I agree that guns are already part of the culture and we can't go back from that. There is indeed a need for them in our society now that so many people have them and have access to them. The knife thing was, again, a reaction to the idea of "well knives kill people too but we don't ban those." And my point was that knives and guns were not at all the same thing in that context. If they were just as deadly as guns, no one would need guns at all. But obviously, that's not true. And if all the guns magically disappeared, yes there would still be knife murders, but not on this scale. If Adam Lanza tried to do what he did with a knife, someone could have stopped him a lot easier, he would have been easier to evade, and he wouldn't have killed nearly as many people. He wouldn't have even gotten in the building because he had to shoot his way through the window. Guns get the attention they do because of how much more efficient and singularly-focused in their purpose they are compared to knives and other weapons.

Talon wrote:

JaysonAych wrote:So just to be clear, the previous assault weapon ban wasn't much of a ban at all because it didn't actually ban assault weapons. And it's surprising that the completely ineffective assault weapon ban that still allowed people to buy assault weapons didn't solve anything? No wonder it didn't work! Saying any new legislation wouldn't work because the old one didn't doesn't really mean much because the old one didn't do anything. We'll have to see what the proposed bans actually are looking to ban to make that determination.

I agree with your last sentence. Either they stop the legality of them completely or they should do nothing. I am for the latter. Doing it half ass does nothing. In fact, even talking about it sells more guns and accessories than anything. For example, the most popular type of 30 round magazine for the AR-15 is called a PMag, made by Magpul Industries. I implore you to find one online right now. Find me an online dealer than has them in stock for under $20 (anything higher than that and a place is simply price gouging). If you do, post the link so I can buy some. Talking about another AWB puts people into panic mode and sells more AR-15s and accessories than anything.

If they do another AWB, a $900 AR will be worth $2,000-2,500. If they ban them completely, they will probably be worth $5,000-$10,000. Time will tell.

Maybe a 30 round magazine that's higher than $20 is price gouging, but for a nutjob who really wants to do some killing, they'll pay $50 or a hundred.
Legislation doesn't need to half-ass things, but it doesn't need to entirely ban them either. There's all kinds of things that can be done, such as banning high capacity magazines and certain types of weapons. Maybe there could be a ban assault rifles in civilian sales but offer exemptions in areas where they would be really useful and necessary for a job, such as the farmer using one to take out wolves as you cited earlier. Maybe limit civilian-sold assault rifles to single-shot or burst only and ban full auto. Maybe limit magazines to 10 rounds. If full-on bans drive assault rifles into used-car-price territory, maybe that will be enough to make the crazies look elsewhere for their implements of destruction, maybe to something less lethal. Maybe heavy taxation on weapons that have full-auto capabilities to keep the price out of reach of all but the most serious needs. There's all kinds of things that can be done to keep them around but limit their reach. I don't know. Again, we'll have to see what's proposed and there are options that will have to be considered and weighed for effectiveness, but simply keeping things as they are is not going to be a solution.

Talon wrote:
There are so many issues that need to be addressed here and simply going after the guns is unrealistic and, frankly, unfair. The sad thing is, that of most all of these tragedies, in hindsight, it’s always so clear why it happened. Lanza’s mom should not have been allowed to buy a gun. The fact that she lived with a mentally unstable person should have come up on the check. That is a problem. James Holmes should never have been able to get a gun. He was seeing a psychiatrist (and even told the psychiatrist he wanted to kill people) which should have come up on a red-flag.

Changing the system that allowed that is indeed necessary. I agree that will do more in the long-term to make society safer, and what we have now is woefully inadequate. A standardized national system that all pertinent avenues have to feed into (e.g., laws forcing James Holmes's psychiatrist to enter in a national database that's checked during weapons purchases that he displayed these tendencies) is going to have to be implemented and made efficient and given real teeth (e.g. gun retailers who don't check or ignore things that come up in checks face severe criminal penalties, as well as doctors who withhold that kind of information from said databases). In the short term, however, until we have a system in place that is picking these kinds of things up, a halt or ban on the most destructive guns and gun features may be necessary. Once we've overhauled how we do background checks, license and register weapons, and sell them, maybe then those bans can be lifted.

Talon wrote:The media is also to blame for this… all these news companies try so hard to one-up each other it ends up in a downward spiral. Do you remember the names of the Columbine shooters? I do: Harris and Clebould [sp?]. Do you remember the names of any of the victims? I don’t. The media puts these sick fucks in such a bright spot-light, other sick fucks want to get in it. I would be willing to bet if the media never started coverage on any of these shootings, they’d decline dramatically. Hell, even Newtown has had enough of the media already and it’s not even been a week yet.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/newtown-residents-ready-step-media-glare-100627069.html

I don't disagree with you there. And in this case there were some particularly galling and ridiculous moments in their quest for scoops. They were shoving cameras and microphones into kids' faces while the police were still determining whether or not the situation was completely over. Adam Lanza's brother Ryan was misidentified as the killer, and the media plastered his name and picture everywhere as soon as they found his Facebook page. He came home to find hundreds of death threats on his Facebook page (even though he posted to say it wasn't him and it had been confirmed by then that whoever the killer was killed himself and Ryan was in New York City at the time because people are fucking dumb) AND THEN discovered his brother killed his mother and a bunch of schoolchildren. News organizations STILL had Peter's picture on their websites long after correcting their articles and TV coverage. Such a horrible situation for that guy, and all because of irresponsible handling of things by the media.

That being said, and even though the media does way too much to give attention to killers, the media coverage for this tragedy HAS finally opened a discussion about whether or not we want our culture to continue in this fashion, not just on the gun front, but in the medical front as well. Politicians can't ignore this anymore, and the traditional lobbies that have been so successful in maintaining the status quo aren't going to be as effective this time around. Regardless of how we come out the other side of this, the potential to make real changes and overhaul several broken systems (mental healthcare, keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, the responsibility of the media) has never been greater.

Hey Jay, I read all your posts and you make some good points. I hope there is some middle ground between leaving the current system alone and banning AR-15s all together.

I say fuck this shit... lets go get a beer.

Sounds good to me

Saw that on Facebook. Quoting something I saw regarding it:

"I would be interested to hear more from some of the celebrities in this video as to what they would like to have done and what freedoms they expect to be given up.

Beyonce' for example, married to Jay-Z who was convicted of Felony Assault for stabbing a man with a knife in 1999. Shortly before the ruling, Jay-Z was detained and his bodyguards arrested for having handguns at a nightclub in the gun-free zone of New York City. Clearly they felt his safety was worth breaking the law.

Jamie Foxx was attacked by a stalker in 1999 in PA with only a door to protect him- the next day, the man was intercepted by Foxx's armed private security detail.

I would like to take the time to sort through all 55 Actors backgrounds to see what crimes they have been part of or where others with guns saved them from harm, but frankly- why? This is a clear propaganda film with no factual information at all. "

clockbreaker wrote:

ENOUGH of that damn video!

1:23 of a waste of time where the blathering celebs offered NOTHING other than a stupid phrase " Demand A Plan". STFU and offer a feasible solution you pompous jerks the lot of you!

Of course none of them will. But they all know how to get face time in front of a camera.

I hate people who ride on coat tails especially of tragedies and worse especially pompous celebs.

Ironically it's the NRA who offered a possible PLAN! One may or may not agree with their suggestion but they manned up to put one forward and did not waste time as this G'damn pompous celeb filled video did.

The NRA think all schools should have armed security guards? What a fucking ridiculous statement that has rightfully been ridiculed in international press. With idiots like them involved in politics no wonder you cant sort the gun crime out.

well, why not real police officers? that way help is never far. plus, it would make the kids (and parents) feel safe if they see a policeman is protecting them.
but yeah, the NRA are generally a bunch of nutcases. they rarely, if ever, know how to solve these problems.

Who's going to pay for it? Many governments on state and municipal levels are already cutting back on services due to the economy (oddly enough school budgets get hit hard in times like these), and a lot (certainly not all, but a lot) of the NRA's most vocal supporters tend to be right-wing, and right-wingers are also the same people who cry foul at anything that might raise taxes, even if it's something we desperately need. Oddly enough a lot of those right-wingers also think BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S turning this country into a police state, and now the solution is more police?

The NRA's position is so comically transparent that I can't believe it wasn't written by the SNL staff. It's one thing for them to make a case that gun laws aren't the solution, but the way they went about it was just callous and tone-deaf. Everything is the problem, except the one thing the companies they lobby for make a lot of money on, and instead of offering solutions on what can be done to make gun ownership safer and more responsible, or even give any kind of tangible solution to all of the other non-gun factors that play into these tragedies, they just lashed out mindlessly at Hollywood and video games without any real answers. The only real solution they offered was to hire more cops and armed guards so they can sell even MORE guns to them. Posting armed guards at the thousands of schools that don't have them is just a band-aid for problems that are much bigger and more complex, and won't solve the bigger problems with society at large.

so Utah is teaching teachers how to use a gun now...

http://news.msn.com/us/200-utah-teachers-attend-free-gun-training

absolutely not a good idea.

Just an FYI sorta related to this thread. Stories are coming out at how Facebook has been actively deleting posts that are pro gun rights and pro NRA including even suspending user accounts who put out such types of posts. Facebook is now actively playing politics by censoring FREE SPEECH in the USA. Now one can support or not gun rights and the NRA, Hell have free and open debate but to allow Facebook to get away with such censoring of free speech is un-American and anti anything that represents liberty. It's time that Facebook users reevaluate what that business is and maybe look to kick em in the nuts so to speak by cancelling your accounts... Any of you and those you know and can tell about this nonsense by Facebook are now not addicted enough to Facebook to have the resolve to beat down this anti-American and anti-liberty corporation?


Hopefully the day I hear or read about Facebook going tits up will be a day to pop the champagne. But I won't hold my breath as too many addicts use this service and allow themselves to abused by Facebook.

I haven't heard about that and I haven't found any news articles about that either. Pro-NRA stuff certainly hasn't slowed down in my news feed.

In one of the suburbs across the river in Indiana, they set up a gun buyback program today, and put aside $50,000 for it. They ran out of money after about 2 or 3 hours.

shit like that always circulates around facebook, and it's always just a big steaming pot of copypasta.

but yes, i've found facebook utterly useless to my interests, and as such i killed it after a couple months of dealing with 98% spam and 2% useless jibberjabber from people i hadn't talked to since Monica Lewinsky was a household name.

did anyone see that alex jones thing? his opinion aside he really made an ass out of himself. acting like that only takes credibility away from your side.

Its made worldwide news it was so bad. Its even been mentioned here in China. Piers Morgan is a fucking idiot but he summed it up best - there is no better advertisement for gun control than Alex Jones.

I saw that and was laughing the whole time. I thought that fatass was going to have a stroke right there. The only good thing that came of that had nothing to do with the topic at hand, but the fact Alex Jones was treating Piers like Piers usually treats his guests... interrupting them every other word and talking louder.

I've been trying to avoid this thread as to not open up another can of worms, but I came across this a few days ago and thought it was interesting. While videos of brainless celebs talking with no statistics or evidence to back up their message circle the web, videos like the one below get ignored. Imagine that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=youtu.be

i really don't know what is worse. people posting fake stories links lies and general BS that they are trying to relate to a pro-gun stance thinking someone is going to show up at their door tomorrow to collect guns. Or the goofy people that think gun control, limiting what people can legally buy is somehow going to make the country a better place.

So Ohio is going to start letting it's school janitors pack heat.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/ohio_school_board_approves_plan_to_arm_custodians/

I picked the worst fucking time to buy my first gun.

Depends on what gun you want. Just bought me wife a ruger lcr for 350. Ammo and AR's are going to be nuts for a while until it all dies down. President just announced plan to support AWB so shits going to go even more nuts. Kills me nothing they mentioned would have stopped any of the recent shootings yay nonsense legislation.

I just bought a 10/22, I want more mags for it and they are sold out everywhere.

Yeah 10/22 is going to hardest to find especially the 30s.

VS wrote:I just bought a 10/22, I want more mags for it and they are sold out everywhere.

You’d have an easier time finding the leprechaun who was stealing all the crack.

Yeah it sucks. I'm doing an Appleseed shoot in march. even 10 rounders would be fine but they are fucking unicorns right now

Unicorn prolly more likely

When famous snipers and Obama inauguration performers are getting shot, the story probably isn't going away this time.

And I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised at the NRA suggesting armed guards at schools and banning video games. Have you ever known a group of companies to suggest moves that lower sales? The more people who have to get their gun fix by going to a range rather than playing a video game, the better for gun sales.