Discussion about hot topics trending today

[garhkal]

For one the quantity who bought is kind of alarming.

Now that's something i was discussing online earlier with some of my gaming buddies, who are also gun owners..
While we can see too many problems with restricting who can own guns (as eventually those rules on who can/can't will be used to decide no one can), WE also don't understand why, unless you are a collector, someone needs 4+ guns.. Now i MIGHT see it for those who are disaster preppers.. Who often DO get a dozen or more, i don't see how anyone else needs more than 4.
1 Hunting rifle
1 shotgun for home defense
1-2 pistols for personal defense.

This all goes back to my raging against at will employment. Bosses can literally fire you for anything and you have no right

Unless you happen to be a tenured liberal teacher, then you can call for trump's assassination no problems with out fear of being fired.

[Womble]

All of his guns were LEGALLY bought, with NO FLAGS raised during any back round checks.. SO UNLESS you want to ban guns totally and utterly, how would YOU HAVE stopped him?

Shouldn't those exact facts give you a long hard pause?

In your country, it is possible for a single nutjob to legally buy enough firepower to single-handedly massacre dozens of people and injure hundreds, and background checks do not protect.

[Falcon Horus]

We don't yet know if it was terrorism or not. A single lone nutjob is not necessarily a terrorist. The authorities will have to determine his motives.

According to the State law he is:

Nevada law suggests the Sunday night massacre of at least 50 people can be defined as terrorism: The state's statute says an “act of terrorism means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population”.

1 Hunting rifle

Over here: you need a permit to own one and lessons, and of course a hunting permit.

1 shotgun for home defense

To cause a bloody mess -- nope, a shotgun is not meant to defend, it's meant to maim and kill.

1-2 pistols for personal defense.

How many bullets fit in the magazine of a .9mm?

Between 12 and 15, and 1 in the chamber. 1 would do just fine. (unless you're a really bad shot, but in that case a gun is not for you)

[Annoyed]

Now that's something i was discussing online earlier with some of my gaming buddies, who are also gun owners..
While we can see too many problems with restricting who can own guns (as eventually those rules on who can/can't will be used to decide no one can), WE also don't understand why, unless you are a collector, someone needs 4+ guns.. Now i MIGHT see it for those who are disaster preppers.. Who often DO get a dozen or more, i don't see how anyone else needs more than 4.
1 Hunting rifle
1 shotgun for home defense
1-2 pistols for personal defense.

You can't give 'em an inch, or they will take a mile. For example, look at NY State's "Safe Act"; it bans magazines that hold more than 7 rounds, among other ridiculous regulations.

Unless you happen to be a tenured liberal teacher, then you can call for trump's assassination no problems with out fear of being fired.

A liberal teacher wouldn't even need tenure to be safe.

[SoulReaver]

I like the irony in this one
dunno his political camp but I'd say it's conservative given how he speaks of government:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sh-abbott-band


leaving aside the gun debate for a moment - consider this :


"members of the band’s crew have concealed handgun licenses, and legal firearms on the bus.
They were useless
We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think that we were part of the massacre and shoot us"

but then he adds:

"dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help"

does this imbecile realize what he's saying

he praises the SS for allegedly trying to help, right after admitting it is they who prevent him from exercising the rights he supports/supported which are supposed to enable him to help himself in the first place

typical government-worshipping neocons
lol

[thekillman]

does this imbecile realize what he's saying

He does. I mean, the article made it pretty clear that the event caused him to change his mind about being pro-guns.

he praises the SS for allegedly trying to help, right after admitting it is they who prevent him from exercising the rights he supports/supported which are supposed to enable him to help himself in the first place

Help himself how, exactly? use his handgun to shoot a guy concealed in a hotel with superior firepower in every way? And imagine this: he uses his gun to shoot, what kind of image does that give other gun owners? Exactly: there's another shooter (or even THE shooter) and he can expect several bullets in his back.

More guns doesn't work. It just doesn't.

[Womble]

How many bullets fit in the magazine of a .9mm?

Between 12 and 15, and 1 in the chamber. 1 would do just fine. (unless you're a really bad shot, but in that case a gun is not for you)

Actually, for the vast majority of self-defense situations (barring being under siege by a large number of gun-toting assailants), a 6-shot revolver will do.

People who get more than one gun for self-defense usually intend to strategically place them around the house, so that if they are cut off by the intruder from the "main" gun safe they would have a spare.

[SoulReaver]

He does. I mean, the article made it pretty clear that the event caused him to change his mind about being pro-guns.

Help himself how, exactly? use his handgun to shoot a guy concealed in a hotel with superior firepower in every way? And imagine this: he uses his gun to shoot, what kind of image does that give other gun owners? Exactly: there's another shooter (or even THE shooter) and he can expect several bullets in his back.

More guns doesn't work. It just doesn't.

yeah w/e I said this isn't about the gun debate it's about his stance on Government
basically he berates then praises govt in the same statement & doesn't even realize it

btw how many dead? 58? that's about the number of unarmed commoners that the SS must be shooting on a weekly basis in that country (and they don't get punished)
about time they start a CLM movement aka. Civilian Lives Matter

[thekillman]

basically he berates then praises govt in the same statement & doesn't even realize it

Except the police wasn't forcing him to not use his gun. He chose to not use his gun, because it would only make matters more complicated. The police has a right to self defense too, and when they're at a venue where it's raining bullets, do you really think they're gonna stop and ask someone firing their gun blindly, their intentions?

[SoulReaver]

Except the police wasn't forcing him to not use his gun.

no they allowed him to use it under pain of death. he too knows his law enforcement

He chose to not use his gun, because it would only make matters more complicated.

as in it would make him dead, by his own admission

The police has a right to self defense too,

much more than self defence generally. the "too" part is of course false, case in point if the commonfolk try to defend themselves they're likely to be gunned down by they pay to protect them & he admits it himself which is funny for a people so proud of a constitution that supposedly allows its citizens to defend themselves too

and when they're at a venue where it's raining bullets, do you really think they're gonna stop and ask someone firing their gun blindly, their intentions?

you're saying it's ok if they react like untrained civilians unable to make the correct split second decisions
so their powers & their training don't give them any xtra responsibility?
basically anyone who's not one of them, is automatically presumed a potential criminal "firing blindly" (conversely anyone who's one of them, is assumed to be acting lawfully even if they're shooting in the back a naked man running away with his hands up lol)
you GOPers still don't see the irony of this?

[thekillman]

no they allowed him to use it under pain of death.

So now it's suddenly a smart idea to be your own police? In a complicated and unclear situation?

I mean, what do you expect him to do, take potshots at the hotel and kill a bunch of innocents?

so their powers & their training don't give them any xtra responsibility?

You're saying a citizen's gun ownership and use doesn't give them any extra responsibility? Police was already on the spot. Using his gun was useless against someone with the firepower of a small militia. What's the point of complicating a situation for no reason?

[SoulReaver]

So now it's suddenly a smart idea to be your own police?

good double standard
when the SS shoot an unarmed man in the back it's self-defence but when a commoner kills an armed attacker he's being his own police?

In a complicated and unclear situation? I mean, what do you expect him to do, take potshots at the hotel and kill a bunch of innocents?

k I meant in general
what about far more common scenario: the shooter's among his victims (eg. what happened in France at the Bataclan theatre or in Turkey at that nightclub)

also in this particular case he didn't even know the shooter was far away

You're saying a citizen's gun ownership and use doesn't give them any extra responsibility?

you comparing the responsibilities of the commonfolk with those of an elite class employed by Government which has a licence to kill, is paid by the commonfolk to protect them (in theory) and is essentially above the law? (as jurisprudence in that country has shown)

[garhkal]

Shouldn't those exact facts give you a long hard pause?

In your country, it is possible for a single nutjob to legally buy enough firepower to single-handedly massacre dozens of people and injure hundreds, and background checks do not protect.

Well, lets check Australia, Europe or the UK and see how "not being allowed to get guns legally by citizens' has stopped the murders. Last i checked it HASN'T.

Over here: you need a permit to own one and lessons, and of course a hunting permit.

A # of states over here you also needs permits..

To cause a bloody mess -- nope, a shotgun is not meant to defend, it's meant to maim and kill.

And what else do you think someone should have for home defense? A Sqirt gun? A nerf bat??

How many bullets fit in the magazine of a .9mm?

Between 12 and 15, and 1 in the chamber. 1 would do just fine. (unless you're a really bad shot, but in that case a gun is not for you)

Military wise yes. Civilian wize, many states limit you to a 10 rnd mag..
SOME even go lower.

[Gatefan1976]

Well, lets check Australia, Europe or the UK and see how "not being allowed to get guns legally by citizens' has stopped the murders. Last i checked it HASN'T.

1: We can get guns legally, it is a myth that we cannot.
2: There are 0.16 homicides by guns per 100k citizens in Australia, in the US it is 3.6 per 100k citizens.
3: There are 0.96 homicides total per 100k citizens in Australia, in the US, it's 4.88

So no, it has not -stopped- murders, just reduced them drastically

A # of states over here you also needs permits..

Which may as well come from cornflakes packets

And what else do you think someone should have for home defense? A Sqirt gun? A nerf bat??

Pistol should be fine, or a revolver.

Military wise yes. Civilian wize, many states limit you to a 10 rnd mag..
SOME even go lower.

You should not even need 10, that was FH's point.

[Annoyed]

1: We can get guns legally, it is a myth that we cannot.
2: There are 0.16 homicides by guns per 100k citizens in Australia, in the US it is 3.6 per 100k citizens.
3: There are 0.96 homicides total per 100k citizens in Australia, in the US, it's 4.88

So no, it has not -stopped- murders, just reduced them drastically


Which may as well come from cornflakes packets


Pistol should be fine, or a revolver.

You should not even need 10, that was FH's point.

I think FH has said in past discussions that even if threatened herself, she would not want to use lethal force to defend herself. Although I myself can't understand how anyone could think that way, but it is her right to do so, if she wishes.