Mass Shooting at CO Dark Knight Rises Premiere

[R&R Express]

R&R... I am speaking to their FUNCTION, not what people actually do with them. Their FUNCTION is to kill multiple living things. Assault rifles are designed for war. They are designed to kill more efficiently and in larger quantities. While people who legally own them don't often use them for this function, that IS their function. So, what do people who legally own assault rifles do with assault rifles? They shoot paper representations of humans. That's it. They don't protect their homes with them, they don't hunt animals with them, ALL they do with them is shoot pieces of paper. So tell me again, is this a valid reason to keep them legal? So people can get their kicks shooting paper? Meanwhile, the 5% of crazies can still have easy access to them so that they can commit unspeakable atrocities... Is it worth it?

I just don't see the logic in that, sorry.

As I stated, handguns and rifles actually have valid uses other than to kill humans or shoot pieces of paper. Assault rifles do not.

We've already had an "assault weapons" ban and it did nothing. So big government coming in and taking more rights away from responsible citizens is certainly not worth something that has already been proven to make little difference. Allowing the government to institute a ban at the expense of them targeting even more guns in the future is not worth something that has already been proven to make little difference. If you want to debate the process in aquiring these weapons, that's one thing. But a ban makes no sense, nor did it in 1994.

[NY8123]

That's cordial...

Listen, I understand why you are so GUNg-Ho about the issue. When it comes to MOST issues, MOST people align themselves with their own interests. That's just the way it is. You enjoy shooting guns, you likely own some, so any form of gun control seems like an affront to your interests. I grok that. Likewise, I don't own guns. Although I have gone to the gun range on a few occasions, I feel no need to own one, nor do I think it makes my home safer or my person safer.

I would rather invest in a home security system and a trusty dog to protect my home, as its more likely these preventative measures would be more effective in thwarting would-be thieves and evil-doers than having a gun under my cushion. Fact is, if someone breaks into my house, they are most likely looking to steal my things, not kill me or my family. However, the second I introduce a gun into that charged situation, its me or them. Do I trust myself, blurry-eyed and ripe from slumber, to shoot an intruder before the alert intruder shoots me? Not enough. The second the intruder feels threatened, its me or them, and in those circumstances, I don't like the odds.

Secondly, I don't enjoy shooting animals for sport. Some people do, and that's all well and good. I understand our evolutionary desire to hunt. It is a holdover from our ancestors, and although all of our food is now available at massive food stores, I understand there is still a primal urge to hunt, which has not been cleansed of our system yet, and likely shouldn't, since I have a suspicion humans will need to go back to their hunter-gatherer ways in order to survive sometime in the future. If hunting is done respectfully, with respect for the dead animals, wherein all parts of the animal are used for some purpose other than human pride, I am all for it. Especially in cases where a certain animal population needs to be culled to maintain a balance. Personally, I think those who hunt with a bow are much more badass than those equipped with a rifle, but that's just my opinion.

As Spesh has also stated, I have never voiced an opinion that handguns or rifles should be banned. I see their purposes, and while they do lead to many unfortunate deaths, I don't believe that banning them outright would have a substantive effect on violent crime in this country. As others have stated, the primary focus should be on finding ways to help reform those who have violent tendencies or come from disadvantaged, desperate environments, or, for those who are sufficiently crazy or hateful, find ways to discover them before they ever purchase weapons to slaughter innocents. A very needed step in regard to that, is to set up central databases where pertinent information regarding a gun-buyer is stored, including mental health history, criminal background and previous weapons purchases.

As for assault rifles, I have still not seen one valid argument why these weapons should be available to anyone on the street. Unlike handguns and rifles, they can't be used for personal protection or hunting, so what purpose does it serve? Being that an assault rifle has no other primary purpose other than to kill mass quantities of organic beings in a single sitting, I see no need to have them around. When people get all upset about an assault rifle ban, it just seems like they are upset about people taking away their favorite toy. That's the gist of it...

I own and use all of the above. I hunt with a bow, I hunt with shotguns, I hunt with rifles and I use everything I kill for food. In fact I don't shoot unless I know with as much certainty as possible that I can hit my mark and kill it.

As for home defense, if you wake me from my slumber and decide to threaten my family and home you will be met with a double barrel loaded with 3" buckshot, so there is really no need to aim. Just point and pull the trigger and everything within a 30' diameter is going down. Right after that I pick up my AR to check on my intruder. The pistol is my last choice given the three options.

Ironically the pistol requires much more regulation and paper work to own because it is so much easier to conceal and carry. You have a far greater chance of getting a pistol pulled on you than an assault weapon of any kind. I can pin a mag to five rounds and hunt with any rifle regardless of its classification, in other states ten shot mags can be used to hunt.

The weapons are not the problem, if they were killings would be at an all time high but they are not they are at historically low levels.

[regency]

the media is concerned about turning this into a political issue then looking at the facts of the actual shooting. too many witness contradictions. moments after the shooting happened witnesses said they saw more than one shooter. then the morning after, a bunch of people who look like actors trying to force cry themselves to win an oscar go out of their way to say that there was only one shooter. then he shows up in court drugged up out of his mind, and now the judge bans any more footage. this all smells like ****. oh and guess what, obama signs the UN smalls arms treaty in two days.

[tylerdolphin]

the media is concerned about turning this into a political issue then looking at the facts of the actual shooting. too many witness contradictions. moments after the shooting happened witnesses said they saw more than one shooter. then the morning after, a bunch of people who look like actors trying to force cry themselves to win an oscar go out of their way to say that there was only one shooter. then he shows up in court drugged up out of his mind, and now the judge bans any more footage. this all smells like ****. oh and guess what, obama signs the UN smalls arms treaty in two days.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[cbreeden]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PhinzN703]

Listen, I understand why you are so GUNg-Ho about the issue. When it comes to MOST issues, MOST people align themselves with their own interests. That's just the way it is. You enjoy shooting guns, you likely own some, so any form of gun control seems like an affront to your interests. I grok that. Likewise, I don't own guns. Although I have gone to the gun range on a few occasions, I feel no need to own one, nor do I think it makes my home safer or my person safer.

I would rather invest in a home security system and a trusty dog to protect my home, as its more likely these preventative measures would be more effective in thwarting would-be thieves and evil-doers than having a gun under my cushion. Fact is, if someone breaks into my house, they are most likely looking to steal my things, not kill me or my family. However, the second I introduce a gun into that charged situation, its me or them. Do I trust myself, blurry-eyed and ripe from slumber, to shoot an intruder before the alert intruder shoots me? Not enough. The second the intruder feels threatened, its me or them, and in those circumstances, I don't like the odds.

Secondly, I don't enjoy shooting animals for sport. Some people do, and that's all well and good. I understand our evolutionary desire to hunt. It is a holdover from our ancestors, and although all of our food is now available at massive food stores, I understand there is still a primal urge to hunt, which has not been cleansed of our system yet, and likely shouldn't, since I have a suspicion humans will need to go back to their hunter-gatherer ways in order to survive sometime in the future. If hunting is done respectfully, with respect for the dead animals, wherein all parts of the animal are used for some purpose other than human pride, I am all for it. Especially in cases where a certain animal population needs to be culled to maintain a balance. Personally, I think those who hunt with a bow are much more badass than those equipped with a rifle, but that's just my opinion.

As Spesh has also stated, I have never voiced an opinion that handguns or rifles should be banned. I see their purposes, and while they do lead to many unfortunate deaths, I don't believe that banning them outright would have a substantive effect on violent crime in this country. As others have stated, the primary focus should be on finding ways to help reform those who have violent tendencies or come from disadvantaged, desperate environments, or, for those who are sufficiently crazy or hateful, find ways to discover them before they ever purchase weapons to slaughter innocents. A very needed step in regard to that, is to set up central databases where pertinent information regarding a gun-buyer is stored, including mental health history, criminal background and previous weapons purchases.

As for assault rifles, I have still not seen one valid argument why these weapons should be available to anyone on the street. Unlike handguns and rifles, they can't be used for personal protection or hunting, so what purpose does it serve? Being that an assault rifle has no other primary purpose other than to kill mass quantities of organic beings in a single sitting, I see no need to have them around. When people get all upset about an assault rifle ban, it just seems like they are upset about people taking away their favorite toy. That's the gist of it...

Well said man

[cbreeden]

the media is concerned about turning this into a political issue then looking at the facts of the actual shooting. too many witness contradictions. moments after the shooting happened witnesses said they saw more than one shooter. then the morning after, a bunch of people who look like actors trying to force cry themselves to win an oscar go out of their way to say that there was only one shooter. then he shows up in court drugged up out of his mind, and now the judge bans any more footage. this all smells like ****. oh and guess what, obama signs the UN smalls arms treaty in two days.

And your point is?

[regency]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

so where in my post did i say anything about jews? you anti semitic or something?

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

And your point is?

its pretty self explanitory. just another false flag attack to push an agenda. a scared and fearful public is one that is easy to manipulate.

[tylerdolphin]

so where in my post did i say anything about jews?

Where in your post did you say anything about anything?

[regency]

Where in your post did you say anything about anything?

funny how you didnt answer the question of whether your antisemitic lol. but anyways, i tend to ask questions that arent being asked or pointed out. we can have a debate but it seems your more into posting little pictures and lame comebacks. keep watching the tele tho, thats obviously your only source of information.