dlp211: Regulate the shiat out of ammo. Want it for self-defense, fine, here's your 7 rounds. Need it for hunting, ok, here's your 7 rounds. Want more for hunting, ok, pay this holding fee and return the spent casings to get it back.

Want to shoot a ton of ammo, no problem, come on down to the range and shoot your hearts content out, make sure your return all your casings though otherwise you will be subject to a brass and ammo check.


Are you high?

Fine...if you want to limit ammo, then let's put a limit on abortion rights....you only get to have two abortions in your life.

dlp211: The_Sponge: rufus-t-firefly: How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?


Just because your side uses the term "common sense" doesn't automatically make it so. So what kind of regulations do you want to see?

Regulate the shiat out of ammo. Want it for self-defense, fine, here's your 7 rounds. Need it for hunting, ok, here's your 7 rounds. Want more for hunting, ok, pay this holding fee and return the spent casings to get it back.

Want to shoot a ton of ammo, no problem, come on down to the range and shoot your hearts content out, make sure your return all your casings though otherwise you will be subject to a brass and ammo check.

You going to regulate the sale of gunpowder and casings as well?

Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.

The_Sponge: shower_in_my_socks: Chimperror2: Actually, I don't think those people would have cared who shot him.


Right, Mr. CCR with his p-shooter is going to take down a guy who has him massively outgunned, is wearing body armor, operating in the dark with hundreds of screaming people running around. The fantasies some of you nuts have are hilarious.


As much as I support concealed carry, I fully realize that this situation was beyond tough for the average person who has a permit, and I put myself in that category.

IMHO, the only person who would have been prepared for that scenario is somebody who has extensive law enforcement or military training.

As someone with extensive military training especially in CQB situations, even I am probably not taking a shot in that scenario. I could, if everything in the environment was perfect for me to take the shot, but that would be completely out of my hands.

The_Sponge: And that has done wonders for the firearms death rate, right? Because California is slightly ahead of Washington when it comes to that statistic, and we don't have a ban on high capacity magazines.


I stated earlier that it wouldn't do anything to stop everyday gun crime, but it would definitely curb mass-casualty rampages like Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, etc. Could a gun enthusiast with connections still get a hold of illegal equipment? Sure. But that doesn't describe the shooters in any of those mass-murders.

Frank N Stein: Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.

I would be surprised if you could point out five liberals in this thread who advocated gun control.

But please, keep arguing with the voices in your head, and by all means make sure those checks to the NRA keep flowing.

LOOK OUT! Obama's under your bed, reaching for your gun. Write that check faster!

redmid17: dlp211: The_Sponge: rufus-t-firefly: How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?


Just because your side uses the term "common sense" doesn't automatically make it so. So what kind of regulations do you want to see?

Regulate the shiat out of ammo. Want it for self-defense, fine, here's your 7 rounds. Need it for hunting, ok, here's your 7 rounds. Want more for hunting, ok, pay this holding fee and return the spent casings to get it back.

Want to shoot a ton of ammo, no problem, come on down to the range and shoot your hearts content out, make sure your return all your casings though otherwise you will be subject to a brass and ammo check.

You going to regulate the sale of gunpowder and casings as well?

Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have. Why must the solution be perfect.

The_Sponge: dlp211: Regulate the shiat out of ammo. Want it for self-defense, fine, here's your 7 rounds. Need it for hunting, ok, here's your 7 rounds. Want more for hunting, ok, pay this holding fee and return the spent casings to get it back.

Want to shoot a ton of ammo, no problem, come on down to the range and shoot your hearts content out, make sure your return all your casings though otherwise you will be subject to a brass and ammo check.


Are you high?

Fine...if you want to limit ammo, then let's put a limit on abortion rights....you only get to have two abortions in your life.

That doesn't make sense. If you have someone who was raped 3 times and impregnated 3 times, don't you think the child that results from the 3rd rape might grow up and become a murdering rapist too?

BULLET SPRAY! A-OK!

The_Sponge: dlp211: Regulate the shiat out of ammo. Want it for self-defense, fine, here's your 7 rounds. Need it for hunting, ok, here's your 7 rounds. Want more for hunting, ok, pay this holding fee and return the spent casings to get it back.

Want to shoot a ton of ammo, no problem, come on down to the range and shoot your hearts content out, make sure your return all your casings though otherwise you will be subject to a brass and ammo check.


Are you high?

Fine...if you want to limit ammo, then let's put a limit on abortion rights....you only get to have two abortions in your life.

I'm limiting you in how much you can shoot. I'm am limiting you to where you can shoot. I have no problem with abortions in clinics, I have problems with abortions in back alley clinics, so you can take that strawman and beat it.

Fart_Machine: It would have been a nightmare scenario for anyone with military or police training. Trying to take out an armored gunman in a dark crowded theater with scrambling civilians and tear gas grenades going off? We're talking Kobayashi Maru level here.


The only thing I'll give the CCR argument here is the possibility that the shooter would have fled if he realized someone was shooting back. Possibly he would have just run to the theater next door and kept going, but we'll never know.

I support CCR programs and it's the one thing I wish I could get in my state, but they've made it virtually impossible.

dlp211: Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have. Why must the solution be perfect.


Because your solutions infringe on my rights.

dlp211: I'm limiting you in how much you can shoot. I'm am limiting you to where you can shoot.


You can take your limit, and shove it up your ass.

EyeballKid: Frank N Stein: Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.

Wait. So, that means Hitler and Stalin WEREN'T progressives? Remember, you have a narrative that you're sticking to, here.

Wait, what are you talking about? What are you implying? What narrative? How many paint chips did you eat as a child?

dlp211: I'm NOT limiting you in how much you can shoot. I'm am limiting you to where you can shoot. I have no problem with abortions in clinics, I have problems with abortions in back alley clinics, so you can take that strawman and beat it.

FTFM

The_Sponge: dlp211: Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have. Why must the solution be perfect.


Because your solutions infringe on my rights.

What right is that?

shower_in_my_socks: Giltric: Don;t know if we will ever get a final report that would say how many were injured by .223 and how many were injured by the other weapons he used. But all of your arguemnets might be based on a weapon that wasn;t even a factor in killing or injuring people....


He shot 70 people. He started with the shotgun. That's maybe 5 rounds? Then he went to the AR. He eventually went to a semi-auto handgun. I think most of the shooting was probably done with the AR, just doing the math, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. The Tucson shooter also started his rampage using the highest-capacity clip he had, and was tackled when it ran out and he went to load a lower-capcity clip. In that instance, a lower limit would have definitely saved lives.

5 rounds might not seem like alot but the way a shotgun and its rounds are designed to perform with the choke patterns and spread from the projectiles everyone with one piece of birdshot in their arm is counted as injured.

It is very likely that most of the injuries and possibly even deaths came from the shotgun.

Where did you get the info on the order of battle....I'd like to look at it.

rufus-t-firefly: HeadLever: rufus-t-firefly: No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.

Really?

FFS.

In normal usage, the terms are farking interchangeable. You might as well correct my grammar or punctuation.

But limiting both magazines and clips is fine by me.

Even in the military, which is obnoxious with terminology, magazines and clips are interchangeable when talking to others. You may be called a 'gangsta' if you are talking to someone that significantly outranks you, but everyone knows what you mean and that is all that matters.

Are there any pictures of the kit this guy was wearing? People keep saying body armor...but just like how most journalists and cops can't tell the difference bewteen a 22 milimeter handgun and a glock I'm wondering if the guy had riot gear type pads and not actual balistic protection.


Dont the police like to show off the guns and money and drugs they find....where are the pics of this guys kit........

HotIgneous Intruder: Frank N Stein: Holme's AR-15 didn't have selective fire, therefore it isn't a military weapon.

Oh jeeze.

The Navy SEALS use a Rugar Mk II .22-caliber pistol, therefore it's a military weapon.
But when I own it, it's not a military weapon, right?

Any weapon used by the military is a "military weapon."
Any weapon not used by the military is NOT a "military weapon."
The physical details of a weapon are not what makes it a "military weapon."

Its like US v Miller all over again.....

Giltric: Are there any pictures of the kit this guy was wearing? People keep saying body armor...but just like how most journalists and cops can't tell the difference bewteen a 22 milimeter handgun and a glock I'm wondering if the guy had riot gear type pads and not actual balistic protection.


Dont the police like to show off the guns and money and drugs they find....where are the pics of this guys kit........

Here

Giltric: HotIgneous Intruder: Frank N Stein: Holme's AR-15 didn't have selective fire, therefore it isn't a military weapon.

Oh jeeze.

The Navy SEALS use a Rugar Mk II .22-caliber pistol, therefore it's a military weapon.
But when I own it, it's not a military weapon, right?

Any weapon used by the military is a "military weapon."
Any weapon not used by the military is NOT a "military weapon."
The physical details of a weapon are not what makes it a "military weapon."

Its like US v Miller all over again.....

A shiatty ruling as well

paygun: gilgigamesh: I would be surprised if you could point out five liberals in this thread who advocated gun control.

I think that's where these discussions always get derailed. You're a good example, you don't support gun control.

Not anymore.

I am the libbiest lib who ever libbed, but the gun grab that occurred after Katrina opened my eyes.

During a state of civil insurrection and anarchy, police, and perhaps more offensively, Blackwater goons, went door to door disarming law abiding citizens at gunpoint, leaving them completely defenseless against the rampaging crime that had engulfed the city. The police were even less able than usual to protect us, and no one was safe. The city had fallen into pure chaos. Yet for some inexplicable reason, someone thought it would be a good idea to eliminate our ability to defend ourselves as well.

Let's just say that opened my eyes.

I think gun violence is a problem in this country, and I think the NRA is a cancer because it actively and very effectively stifles any real debate about the issue for a profit motive.

Something needs to be done. But while I used to casually support gun control, I see I was wrong. I now absolutely oppose "assault weapon" bans or other forms of gun control as misguided and sinister.

redmid17: Giltric: Are there any pictures of the kit this guy was wearing? People keep saying body armor...but just like how most journalists and cops can't tell the difference bewteen a 22 milimeter handgun and a glock I'm wondering if the guy had riot gear type pads and not actual balistic protection.


Dont the police like to show off the guns and money and drugs they find....where are the pics of this guys kit........

Here

Yep did it myself before my post which is why I am asking.

For all we know it could be a chest rig.....

Link

Or dirtbike rider chest proector with police logo.....Link