griffer: Ad Hominem attacks.

On with my day.

Al_Ed, i'd stick around to help you work though it, but the stench in here is unbearable.

DON'T LEAVE MEEEEEE!

Al_Ed: griffer: Ad Hominem attacks.

On with my day.

Al_Ed, i'd stick around to help you work though it, but the stench in here is unbearable.

DON'T LEAVE MEEEEEE!

Hey, do you need sanctuary from this filth?

Your handle looks naked.

stonicus: Fliegan: Every time I see this guy and his dopey hair and that spaced-out look on his face, I imagine his thought process when dying his hair only involved how cool and "movie-like" it would look to have orange hair with guns blazing away (he probably even imagined a slight breeze blowing through his curly locks, forgetting that the gas mask would cover up most of his hair). He never thought about how it would look in a courtroom with 4 days of stubble on his chin and dark circles under his bulging eyes. Or, if he did think about the courtoom, he neglected to consider that every weird-o bad guy in a blockbuster comic-book movie has about three hours of hair and makeup before they start fiming every day; Heath Ledger's Joker had that crazed, smeared look, which was actually carefully applied make-up augmented by professional lighting and costumes. This guy really thought that this event was going to be just like a scene from a movie and he would have that insane yet heroic look that great actors and movie technicians can convey. Pathetic.

I get the idea he planned on killing himself afterwards, then pussied out. He clearly didn't intend on going back to his apartment. Didn't have supplies or ID to run away. He planned on dying... then changed his mind.

I disagree. If indeed he identifies with Joker, he wants to taunt the law. Remember Joker lays down and lets the cops take him so he can confront Batman in jail. This jerkoff surrenders to police without a fight when it would have been really easy to "go out in a blaze of glory" in a cop firefight. THEN he tells the cops, here's my name, here's my address. Go check it out and get a surprize. Big time taunt and he wants to be alive to see them twist and squirm and maybe get blowed up. This guy's big-time psychotic, but unlike your comic book villains he lacks the rational side to keep it together, likewise he lacks the resources and gang of lackeys it takes to crash the bus into the police station and bust him out.

Fliegan: Every time I see this guy and his dopey hair and that spaced-out look on his face, I imagine his thought process when dying his hair only involved how cool and "movie-like" it would look to have orange hair with guns blazing away (he probably even imagined a slight breeze blowing through his curly locks, forgetting that the gas mask would cover up most of his hair).


And helmet.

Dimensio, he is just a troll. No better than the shooter in his desperation for attention and a safe 'fight'.


/why not? he made me the gun freak that was abused as a child by a drunken male after being abandoned. whatever, he's a douche

griffer: Hey, do you need sanctuary from this filth?

Your handle looks naked.

I was cast aside like so much refuse...I feel like the new guy in the ward. I..I don't know anyone and have been avoiding eye contact all the while listening to the crazy ramblings...

*sniff*

I'm scared.

Lots of Stupid in this thread!

Aaaaaand he takes the safety.

The harsh regs will be perfect and palatable to the majority.


Riiiiight, I will call these the Unicorn Regs of Harshness.

Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

You don't return fire, you asshat.

You just slobber.

You didn't rebutt anything I posted.


Well, maybe a 1st grader thinks 'You're Stupid' style replies are a rebuttal.

quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

The AWB was retarded because it banned cosmetic features, not guns with the functionality you are talking about.

killershark: stonicus: I do think something happened in his mentality when he went back to his car and his mental direction changed, which is why he disclosed the bombs in his apartment. Brief moment of clairty perhaps?

That did strike me as weird. He thinks this whole bomb and shooting plot up, goes in and shoots a bunch of people, and then when he walks out and the cops see him, he just gives up. It's a bit odd.

That being said, the cops haven't released exactly what he told them, have they? I still think one of the reasons for the bombs in his apartment were to have someone trip them, blowing the place up and distracting first responders while he's shooting up the theater. It makes me wonder if he told the cops he was also responsible for the bombing, thinking it had already gone off.

farking kids these days are too lazy to stick to anything. I'm surprised he didn't put his hands up for a "timeout"

redmid17: quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

The AWB was retarded because it banned cosmetic features, not guns with the functionality you are talking about.

Fair enough then, so I'm talking about an actual ban on assault weapons... as in anything semi-automatic, instead of the AWB of the past.

Yes, I'm aware semi-auto includes machine pistols. If you're defending yourself and need semi-auto, your aim sucks and you shouldn't have a gun.

re"but"....huh huh...huh huh huh...

quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

quiotu: redmid17: quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

The AWB was retarded because it banned cosmetic features, not guns with the functionality you are talking about.

Fair enough then, so I'm talking about an actual ban on assault weapons... as in anything semi-automatic, instead of the AWB of the past.

Yes, I'm aware semi-auto includes machine pistols. If you're defending yourself and need semi-auto, your aim sucks and you shouldn't have a gun.

Well now you're talking about outlawing guns that make up about 70% of guns sold in 2006. Banning everything semi-auto means you'll have probably tens of millions (at the very least) of illegal guns in the hands of civilians. How do propose on addressing that?

* Grandfathering in that many guns is pointless
* Buying those guns at fair market price would take a lot of money
* Seizing those guns from people would really piss off a large chunk of society and would be severely impractical to say the least

Bontesla: The Stealth Hippopotamus: ourbigdumbmouth: Isn't it a little disrespectful to the legal process and to the victims to call this guy Sideshow Bob?

No. It's disrespectful to him. And that's kinda the point.

And when are we going to hear the calls for more bomb laws?!

Why didn't his apartment blow skyhigh? If he ready wanted to kill a lot of people and he really is as smart as people are saying he would have to know they would find where he lived. And the odds of him getting away were long. So why wouldnt he place a time triggered bomb in the apartment? Somewhere between 12 & 24 hours everyone and their mother will be crowded around that pace. Cops, reporters and looky Lous will be right there. And on the off chance you do get away you could deactivate it. Doesnt make sense.

And if he had bombs why didn't he use them in the attack??

I think we're still unclear on his intention and whether or not he accomplished his goal.

Don't know if this was posted yet but someone on CNN this morning suggested that he set up the booby traps as a diversion prior to him gunning down theater patrons. He put on some techno music full-volume before leaving for the theater. The guess is he expected a neighbor to complain & someone, either the superintendent or the cops, to open the door, triggering a bunch of bombs & gasoline, and blow the building sky-high. That would give him more time for his rampage while first-responders were dealing with an apartment building on fire.

brigid_fitch: Don't know if this was posted yet but someone on CNN this morning suggested that he set up the booby traps as a diversion prior to him gunning down theater patrons. He put on some techno music full-volume before leaving for the theater. The guess is he expected a neighbor to complain & someone, either the superintendent or the cops, to open the door, triggering a bunch of bombs & gasoline, and blow the building sky-high. That would give him more time for his rampage while first-responders were dealing with an apartment building on fire.

Seems rather complicated. Why not just put the explosives on a timer, that'd be more reliable than the off-chance someone comes a-knockin', or calls cops who'll bust in the door.

stonicus: That made sense in Hamilton's time because it was actually possible. That isn't possible anymore. Do you know what it would take for the civilian population to compete with the military? Do you know what we'd have to be able to be allowed to own, to even have a miniscule chance in hell of competeing with the military?

I know, I hate that argument. If the government becomes "formidable to the liberties of the people", you gun nuts aren't going to do a damned thing and you know it.

quiotu: I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

Defintionally, that's hard.

That gun is like so many other magazine fed, semi-automatic hunting rifles firing .223 Remington civilian round.

What exactly made that particular model gun more deadly? Nothing. How do write legislation that works?

Oh, it LOOKS like a military weapon?

From the wiki article-

Assault Rifle-
-It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
-It must be capable of selective fire; (fire modes including single shot, or multiple or full auto fire)
-It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
-Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
-And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Assault Weapon- It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Primary pistol grip
-Forward grip
-Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
-Barrel shroud

These are AESTHETIC things that don't make a weapon more deadly, they just make it look 'scarier'.

Did you know rifles used in the Winter Olympics qualify as assault weapons?


I am not saying no regulation, rather I am asking that we sponsor legislation that makes rational sense and isn't motivated by fear.

One last point about the specific weapon, the M&P15 and other AR-15 style weapons. The M&P15 is designed as a tactical weapon. That means its intended to be used against people. Let's not be blind to that point. But I know many property owners in the wake of Katrina were very happy to have tactical rifles in their possession to defend their property.

As stable as out society is, there are place and points in time where the police can't help you, and if you are facing large numbers of hostiles, this weapon is for that.

griffer: Defintionally, that's hard.

That gun is like so many other magazine fed, semi-automatic hunting rifles firing .223 Remington civilian round.

What exactly made that particular model gun more deadly? Nothing. How do write legislation that works?

Oh, it LOOKS like a military weapon?

From the wiki article-

Assault Rifle-
-It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
-It must be capable of selective fire; (fire modes including single shot, or multiple or full auto fire)
-It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
-Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
-And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Assault Weapon- It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Primary pistol grip
-Forward grip
-Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
-Barrel shroud

These are AESTHETIC things that don't make a weapon more deadly, they just make it look 'scarier'.

Did you know rifles used in the Winter Olympics qualify as assault weapons?


I am not saying no regulation, rather I am asking that we sponsor legislation that makes rational sense and isn't motivated by fear.

One last point about the specific weapon, the M&P15 and other AR-15 style weapons. The M&P15 is designed as a tactical weapon. That means its intended to be used against people. Let's not be blind to that point. But I know many property owners in the wake of Katrina were very happy to have tactical rifles in their possession to defend their property.
...

Ex-f*cking-actly! Close your eyes and let me shoot you with a single shot bolt action hunting rifle and then with a M4 semi-automatic assault rifle with optics, laser sight, folding stock, bayonet, and fuzzy dice hanging off the ventilated foregrip.

Which one hurts or kills more readily?

stonicus: Giltric: quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

That made sense in Hamilton's time because it was actually possible. That isn't possible anymore. Do you know what it would take for the civilian population to compete with the military? Do you know what we'd have to be able to be allowed to own, to even have a miniscule chance in hell of competeing with the military?

Ask the Vietnamese what level of weaponry you need to grind American forces to a halt.

stonicus: Giltric: quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

That made sense in Hamilton's time because it was actually possible. That isn't possible anymore. Do you know what it would take for the civilian population to compete with the military? Do you know what we'd have to be able to be allowed to own, to even have a miniscule chance in hell of competeing with the military?

A Mosin-Nagant?

brigid_fitch: Don't know if this was posted yet but someone on CNN this morning suggested that he set up the booby traps as a diversion prior to him gunning down theater patrons. He put on some techno music full-volume before leaving for the theater. The guess is he expected a neighbor to complain & someone, either the superintendent or the cops, to open the door, triggering a bunch of bombs & gasoline, and blow the building sky-high. That would give him more time for his rampage while first-responders were dealing with an apartment building on fire.

Makes more sense than anything else I've heard regarding that tidbit.

All Katniss needed was a bow.

Frank N Stein: To those that think an armed citizenry cannot over throw the government: You won't sound so smug when Tea Baggers take over the country and you have armored hover rounds rolling down your street

/In actuality a citizenry that can properly shoot would be very important in a time of nation crisis/invasion/draft.
//Shooting clubs taught future WW2 GIs how to operate the M1 before they entered service

The US Army ran a civilian marksmanship program for almost 100 years AND sold surplus rifles to the members of said program until 1996, but guns are bad so we can't do that anymore.