Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Femboyurge

It's pretty absurd that most Europeans (at least so it seems) and many Americans as well think that private citizens shouldn't have an undisputable right to own and carry guns but cops and soldiers should.

---

Absurd?
they are right about it, private citizens shouldn't have a right to own and carry guns.

guns don't kill , poeple do , if poeple don't get guns they don't kill .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yosi

if poeple don't get guns they don't kill .

---

You can't possibly believe that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yosi

if poeple don't get guns they don't kill .

---

He didn't have a gun, how'd that turn out?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/MCVEIGH.jpg

All the guns in the USA didn't stop 20 arabs armed with boxcutters from bringing us to our trembling little knees. The greatest weapon we had in 1776 was our brains, and we better start using them for our good and the good of the world. Stupidity isn't macho. Seventy percent of the NRA thinks semi-automatic weapons on the street is ridiculous. It's all fuckin' politics. While Rome is burning.
There is no security, only opportunity-MacArthur. (did I post that before?)

Throughout history people have killed people. They typically employ weapons, oftentimes weapons designed for the very purpose of killing people quickly and efficiently. Those weapons are called assault weapons. Ban them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

All the guns in the USA didn't stop 20 arabs armed with boxcutters from bringing us to our trembling little knees. The greatest weapon we had in 1776 was our brains, and we better start using them for our good and the good of the world. Stupidity isn't macho. Seventy percent of the NRA thinks semi-automatic weapons on the street is ridiculous. It's all fuckin' politics. While Rome is burning.
There is no security, only opportunity-MacArthur. (did I post that before?)

---

Argument aside. this was a bad example.
...It could in fact, be used as an example to show that the simplest weapons (aside from firearms) can be used for mass destruction.


...it in fact started a debate as to whether armed marshals should be on flights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Argument aside. this was a bad example.
...It could in fact, be used as an example to show that the simplest weapons (aside from firearms) can be used for mass destruction.


...it in fact started a debate as to whether armed marshals should be on flights.

---

I think its a good example. There is an implied argument that if there was more weapons floating around, in bars, church, movie theaters, etc, we would be safer. I'm a person who sees more danger in everyday anger, especially if we were all carrying assualt weapons. I cited this example before of my friends neighbor, who had her oldest child kill her youngest. Everyone said they were inseparable. I think about being in college, when I got jealous over a love triangle and drove recklessly. Luckily no one was hurt. What if I had access to rocket launchers and hand grenades? Or when I did have access to a gun, and went looking for someone who owed me $50.00. Luckily my right mind kicked in, and I did not go all the way. I never got my $50. But how different would my life had been had I used that gun for harm? Fifty is nothing compared to the happy times I have had over the years. I have been blessed to have lived longer than some of my colleagues. At no time in my life, would it have been better if I had access to assault weapons.

By the way, in the example of 9/11, I wonder why they did not use their overhead luggage, to take on the attackers? A boxcutter cannot go though a suitcase or overnight bag. I have heard of several post 9/11 flight incidents where, out of control passenger were subdued or even killed. So safety was not about assault weapons.

And armed sheriffs aboard jets was quickly shown to be an absurdity - bullets puncturing the pressurized cabin walls and surely causing more deaths than a single bullet would occasion.

We built a training facility for the US Air Marshals. Mock airplane fuselages. I guarantee you don't want to be waving a little box cutter around when one of these guys is in one of the seats. The rounds they fire would have difficulty penetrating drywall, never less the skin of a plane.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...afety_slug.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

All the guns in the USA didn't stop 20 arabs armed with boxcutters from bringing us to our trembling little knees. The greatest weapon we had in 1776 was our brains, and we better start using them for our good and the good of the world. Stupidity isn't macho. Seventy percent of the NRA thinks semi-automatic weapons on the street is ridiculous. It's all fuckin' politics. While Rome is burning.
There is no security, only opportunity-MacArthur. (did I post that before?)

---

Where'd ya get that stat about 70% ? If the question was asked..."Do you think it's a bad idea to have semi automatic weapons on the streets of Chicago?" Why sure 70% would agree. But if Part 2 is ...."Well then we'll need you to turn in your weapons to accomplish that"....let's see what the survey says then.

And your point about security....Sorry Beg to differ. Say hello to my little friend. I've never had a break in...never even get any of those bible thumpers at my door. He likes T Girls but doesn't take kindly to all this talk about semi automatic weapons bans or folks with that political inclination. Better not show up talkin' that stuff...or otherwise unannounced! :dancing: