OT another school shooting

[Husker4real]

This thread provides a good case study for why these things will continue to happen.

It's the opposition's fault; not mine.

 

[Dean Pope]

Maybe they should make these schools "gun free" zones? We all know that more laws work since criminals are known for following the law, right?

Yes, let's not even try to improve the situation. We need more common sense rather than politics.

 

[planored]

This killer was a known crazy f, why was he never brought in for a mental exam. Every student in the school basically knew it was him before actually knowing for sure. He was all over social media about guns and other crazy sites

 

[baseball31ne]

I've heard that they were able to take the kid alive. Good I hope that that's the case I haven't been able to follow much on it but if he's alive interrogate interrogate interrogate figure out everything going on in the background anything that can show factors from drugs to mental illness to Lifestyle the whole Spectrum to look at. I'm already seeing things on social media on both sides of the aisle about how this is the other person's fault in the other mindsets fault. Well we've got somebody that's alive let's dig in and let's find out in this case and go from there.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

This killer was a know crazy f, why was he never brought in for a mental exam. Every student in the school basically knew it was him before actually knowing for sure. He was all over social media about guns and other crazy sites

Where did he get them? If it was a parent they need to fry, and so does this shitbag. I have 3 safes in my house. 1 for a couple pistols, one for ammo, and one for every other gun. Unless someone cuts off my hand, uses it for the biometrics, and knows where I keep the key that chains the 2 big ones closed, good luck getting in.

 

[Jimmy Frank]

The people that do this are cowards.

 

[mwulf]

I teach middle school in LA and out of my 5 classes I could easily see 4 or so kids in each class that are capable of something like this with right access and the common denominator in each kids case is depression, anger and a very unstable home life...whatever makes mass casualty weapons more difficult to get I am all about....also be nice to the outcasts

 

[JohnRossEwing]

Hmmmm

 

[JohnRossEwing]

Pressure cooker bomb
Truck attack
Knife attack.

I will disagree all damn day

What about a slow cooker? I use that a lot.

 

[Jimmy Frank]

If I got to design the legislation, I'd make it hard as hell to prove you're qualified to own a firearm and there would be limits on the type and number you could own. Long guns only. If you can't hunt what you're hunting or stop a break in with a shotgun or a bolt-action, I guess it just wasn't meant to be. That's the short version. You'd need to demonstrate a lot of aptitude and respect for your weapon to be licensed to own it.

It's such a lax culture that acts like guns are a crucial way of life and yet shows them no fundamental respect by treating them like toys and leaving them lying around in cars, night stands, etc. Then people act surprised when some kid gets his dad or uncle's guns and shoots up a school.

Along with that would have to be aggressive buybacks and sweeps to remove illegal arms from circulation. The reason none of the laws currently in place accomplish anything is because you're never more than a few hours' drive from totally circumventing those laws.

I used to shoot when I lived in NE, it's fun. I would probably own and maybe even hunt if I lived out in the country. But this business of having it be harder by far to get a driver's license than it is to buy something made for the purpose of killing living things...are we serious with all that? Why does anyone who calls himself a "responsible gun owner" stand up for the notion that any idiot should be able to walk into a shop and buy five of whatever puts a grin on his face?

This would work great if criminals follow the laws too.

 

[CC_Lemming]

I do not understand how new laws are going to stop this sort of thing.

If this guy will shoot kids in school surely he will break the law to get high capacity magazines.

The simple fact is you cannot stop somebody bent on mayhem before the fact. If it was not a gun it would be a car or a pressure cooker with kitchen supplies and BB's.

I have read people already on this thread willing...no eager to strip honest law abiding citizens of this country of their rights. Sweeps? Seizing people's guns?

Good God listen to yourselves.

Go Blue!

"I do not understand how new laws are going to stop this sort of thing."

I'm not surprised. Every time some mass shooting bad enough to catch the public eye occurs, invariably people start talking about what we can do to fix it. The Vegas shooting revealed that the perpetrator used a bump stock. Well, some thought, sensibly enough: maybe we could outlaw bump stocks. After all, if the perp didn't have a bump stock he wouldn't have inflicted as much carnage. Why does a citizen need to have the ability to buy a bump stock for his semi-automatic rifle? What purpose do they serve such that it could possibly outweigh the danger associated with them?

Gun advocates offered no response to these questions, at least not that I am aware of. (My recollection is that even the NRA was open to the idea of banning bump stocks.) However, we did hear a lot about Second Amendment rights, as we always do. Then, also characteristic of this debate, the gun advocates said people will do bad things regardless. As you say, you don't see how a law could have prevented this sort of thing.

Well, the answer is quite obvious in the case of the Vegas shooting. If bump stocks are illegal, people will not readily have access to them. That means they are harder to get, maybe hard enough that the shooter wouldn't have had one in the first place. "Yeah, but bad people will do bad things regardless." "The criminal is one who breaks laws." There is no stopping one intent on doing evil." "He will find a way." "He will use a car or a pressure cooker," you insist.

First of all, will he really? If he doesn't have ready access to a deadly device, you can't sit there and say with certainty that he will still do the bad thing regardless. Sometimes I intend to do things, and then I realize how hard it would be to do the said thing, and so I give up the doing of the thing. Maybe the disgruntled man would just kill himself instead of killing thirty other people? You don't know that he won't. You can't know that he won't. So the pressure cooker rejoinder is far from a knock-down argument.

Well, let's grant the pressure cooker rejoinder for the sake of argument. Does the pressure cooker do as much damage as the gun with the bump stock? It's hard to see how it could, but even granting that it could, I think you would have to concede that it would take a level of foresight and planning to achieve the same level of carnage. Why is that? Because we have every reason to believe it would not be as effective, otherwise the perpetrator would have used a pressure cooker in the first place. A car would also be less effective. What reason do I have to think this apart from the fact that the perpetrator himself chose a gun rather than a car or a pressure cooker? Cars are made to transport people from A to B. Yeah, you can use a car to kill a person, but it's a lot clumsier than a gun. Same thing goes for the pressure cooker, but more so. Guns are made to harm. That is their function. No, that doesn't mean they are bad things or cannot be wielded responsibly. It means just that: they are made with the purpose of inflicting harm.

For some reason gun advocates seem to be shocked when people point out this obvious fact. Guns are intended to harm. Sometimes they seem utterly unable to accept it. It seems as if they want to insist guns are not intended to harm and that it's only the person wielding the gun who does the harm. When a deranged person or a person with ill intent uses a gun to harm, the person does the shooting, causes harm, and in doing so uses the tool for its intended use. But gun advocates insist it's never the gun's fault because guns don't kill people, people kill people. No. People kill people, and many times they do that with guns, and when guns kill people at the scale of dozens, we shouldn't be surprised. Why? Because they're using the tool for its intended use, especially when that tool is a semi-automatic rifle.

But, according to gun advocates, we should be surprised. I don't know if they're really unable to accept that guns are intended to harm or whether they are expressing shock over how fallen the world is and how evil some people can be. In any case, the real messed up thing is that they insist, as you essentially have, that we are helpless to do anything about it. There is just not a single thing we can do to prevent tragedies like this from happening, apart from arming every citizen or every teacher to stop the perpetrator in the act.

We can't ban bump stocks. We can't make it harder to get guns. We just can't, can't, can't, can't, can't...

 

[CameronKrazie86]

17 people dead, that's just horrible.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

I teach middle school in LA and out of my 5 classes I could easily see 4 or so kids in each class that are capable of something like this with right access and the common denominator in each kids case is depression, anger and a very unstable home life...whatever makes mass casualty weapons more difficult to get I am all about....also be nice to the outcasts

Guns are the tool in your example, not the reason the tool was deployed. It is the culture of hating others, everyone wins, and broken families. It's really not hard to understand (well maybe it is). I don't envy teachers. Powerless against these types of I individuals and the "families" at home. But I guess limiting my rights will make it tougher for them? Makes perfect sense. Worked in San Bernadino.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

"I do not understand how new laws are going to stop this sort of thing."

I'm not surprised. Every time some mass shooting bad enough to catch the public eye occurs, invariably people start talking about what we can do to fix it. The Vegas shooting revealed that the perpetrator used a bump stock. Well, some thought, sensibly enough: maybe we could outlaw bump stocks. After all, if the perp didn't have a bump stock he wouldn't have inflicted as much carnage. Why does a citizen need to have the ability to buy a bump stock for his semi-automatic rifle? What purpose do they serve such that it could possibly outweigh the danger associated with them?

Gun advocates offered no response to these questions, at least not that I am aware of. (My recollection is that even the NRA was open to the idea of banning bump stocks.) However, we did hear a lot about Second Amendment rights, as we always do. Then, also characteristic of this debate, the gun advocates said people will do bad things regardless. As you yourself have acknowledged, you don't see how a law could have prevented this sort of thing.

Well, the answer is quite obvious in the case of the Vega shooting. If bump stocks are illegal, people will not readily have access to them. That means they are harder to get, maybe hard enough that the shooter wouldn't have had one in the first place. "Yeah, but bad people will do bad things regardless. The criminal is one who breaks laws. There is no stopping one intent on doing evil." He will find a way. He will use a car or a pressure cooker, you insist.

First of all, will he really? If he doesn't have ready access to a deadly device, you can't sit there and say with certainty that he will still do the bad thing regardless. Sometimes I intend to do things, and then I realize how hard it would be to do the said thing, and so I give up the doing of the thing. Maybe the disgruntled man would just kill himself instead of killing thirty other people? You don't know that he won't. You can't know that he won't. So the pressure cooker rejoinder is far from proof.

Well, let's grant the pressure cooker rejoinder for the sake of argument. Does the pressure cooker do as much damage as the gun with the bump stock? It's hard to see how it could, but even granting that it could, I think you would have to concede that it would take a level of foresight and planning to achieve the same level of carnage. Why is that? Because we have every reason to believe it would not be as effective, otherwise the perpetrator would have used a pressure cooker in the first place. A car would also be less effective. What reason do I have to think this apart from the fact that the perpetrator himself chose a gun rather than a car or a pressure cooker? Cars are made to transport people from A to B. Yeah, you can use a car to kill a person, but it's a lot clumsier than a gun. Same thing goes for the pressure cooker, but more so. Guns are made to harm. That is their function. No, that doesn't mean they are bad things or cannot be wielded responsibly. It means just that: they are made with the purpose of inflicting harm.

For some reason gun advocates seem to be shocked when people point out this obvious fact. Guns are intended to harm. Sometimes they seem utterly unable to accept it. It seems as if they want to insist guns are not intended to harm and that it's only the person wielding the gun who does the harm. When a deranged person or a person with ill intent uses a gun to harm, the person does the shooting, causes harm, and in doing so uses the tool for its intended use. But gun advocates insist it's never the gun's fault because guns don't kill people, people kill people. No. People kill people, and many times they do that with guns, and when guns kill people at the scale of dozens, we shouldn't be surprised. Why? Because they're using the tool for its intended use, especially when that tool is a semi-automatic rifle.

But, according to gun advocates, we should be surprised. I don't know if they're really unable to accept that guns are intended to harm or whether they are expressing shock over how fallen the world is and how evil some people can be. In any case, the real messed up thing is that they insist, as you essentially have, that we are helpless to do anything about it. There is just not a single thing we can do to prevent tragedies like this from happening, apart from arming every citizen or every teacher to stop the perpetrator in the act.

We can't ban bump stocks. We can't make it harder to get guns. We just can't, can't, can't, can't, can't...

Not a single gun I own, or ever will own is meant to harm any human. No matter how many times you say that, it won't be true. It's a tool. We apparently just can't can't can't be responsible for raising decent human beings.
Chemical castration of the political party that perpetrates a vast majority of these mass shootings makes way more practical sense.

 

[Huskerfan2112]

What about a slow cooker? I use that a lot.

You should try the instant pot.

 

[tarheelhusker]

Our crumbling society will continue to churn out the crazies. Guns are just a tool, man is the perfect weapon. As more info comes in, this murderer was known to be trouble, exhibited all the warning signs & on a watch list. No follow up because we don't want to offend anyone.

 

[Huskerfan2112]

"I do not understand how new laws are going to stop this sort of thing."

I'm not surprised. Every time some mass shooting bad enough to catch the public eye occurs, invariably people start talking about what we can do to fix it. The Vegas shooting revealed that the perpetrator used a bump stock. Well, some thought, sensibly enough: maybe we could outlaw bump stocks. After all, if the perp didn't have a bump stock he wouldn't have inflicted as much carnage. Why does a citizen need to have the ability to buy a bump stock for his semi-automatic rifle? What purpose do they serve such that it could possibly outweigh the danger associated with them?

Gun advocates offered no response to these questions, at least not that I am aware of. (My recollection is that even the NRA was open to the idea of banning bump stocks.) However, we did hear a lot about Second Amendment rights, as we always do. Then, also characteristic of this debate, the gun advocates said people will do bad things regardless. As you say, you don't see how a law could have prevented this sort of thing.

Well, the answer is quite obvious in the case of the Vegas shooting. If bump stocks are illegal, people will not readily have access to them. That means they are harder to get, maybe hard enough that the shooter wouldn't have had one in the first place. "Yeah, but bad people will do bad things regardless." "The criminal is one who breaks laws." There is no stopping one intent on doing evil." "He will find a way." "He will use a car or a pressure cooker," you insist.

First of all, will he really? If he doesn't have ready access to a deadly device, you can't sit there and say with certainty that he will still do the bad thing regardless. Sometimes I intend to do things, and then I realize how hard it would be to do the said thing, and so I give up the doing of the thing. Maybe the disgruntled man would just kill himself instead of killing thirty other people? You don't know that he won't. You can't know that he won't. So the pressure cooker rejoinder is far from a knock-down argument.

Well, let's grant the pressure cooker rejoinder for the sake of argument. Does the pressure cooker do as much damage as the gun with the bump stock? It's hard to see how it could, but even granting that it could, I think you would have to concede that it would take a level of foresight and planning to achieve the same level of carnage. Why is that? Because we have every reason to believe it would not be as effective, otherwise the perpetrator would have used a pressure cooker in the first place. A car would also be less effective. What reason do I have to think this apart from the fact that the perpetrator himself chose a gun rather than a car or a pressure cooker? Cars are made to transport people from A to B. Yeah, you can use a car to kill a person, but it's a lot clumsier than a gun. Same thing goes for the pressure cooker, but more so. Guns are made to harm. That is their function. No, that doesn't mean they are bad things or cannot be wielded responsibly. It means just that: they are made with the purpose of inflicting harm.

For some reason gun advocates seem to be shocked when people point out this obvious fact. Guns are intended to harm. Sometimes they seem utterly unable to accept it. It seems as if they want to insist guns are not intended to harm and that it's only the person wielding the gun who does the harm. When a deranged person or a person with ill intent uses a gun to harm, the person does the shooting, causes harm, and in doing so uses the tool for its intended use. But gun advocates insist it's never the gun's fault because guns don't kill people, people kill people. No. People kill people, and many times they do that with guns, and when guns kill people at the scale of dozens, we shouldn't be surprised. Why? Because they're using the tool for its intended use, especially when that tool is a semi-automatic rifle.

But, according to gun advocates, we should be surprised. I don't know if they're really unable to accept that guns are intended to harm or whether they are expressing shock over how fallen the world is and how evil some people can be. In any case, the real messed up thing is that they insist, as you essentially have, that we are helpless to do anything about it. There is just not a single thing we can do to prevent tragedies like this from happening, apart from arming every citizen or every teacher to stop the perpetrator in the act.

We can't ban bump stocks. We can't make it harder to get guns. We just can't, can't, can't, can't, can't...

You do realize that bump stocks were deemed legal by Obamas ATF right? Obama that champion of the second amendment. So i guess we can blame him

 

[mwulf]

I would rather take my chances with a mass stabbing (do those even happen?) than a mass shooting...I hate the lesser of 2 evils thing but if a kid brings a knife to inflict harm the loss of life will be minimal compared to the gun and you for sure get away without fear of harm

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

Our crumbling society will continue to churn out the crazies. Guns are just a tool, man is the perfect weapon. As more info comes in, this murderer was known to be trouble, exhibited all the warning signs & on a watch list. No follow up because we don't want to offend anyone.

Bingo. Lazy people blame the weapon instead of the actual cause.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

You do realize that bump stocks were deemed legal by Obamas ATF right? Obama that champion of the second amendment. So i guess we can blame him

Ah man, I was saving that one. Don't tell him I can "make" a far more effective "bump stock" with the belt around my freaking waist!

 

[RedMyMind]

I would rather take my chances with a mass stabbing (do those even happen?) than a mass shooting...I hate the lesser of 2 evils thing but if a kid brings a knife to inflict harm the loss of life will be minimal compared to the gun and you for sure get away without fear of harm

In China, 30 people were killed in a single knife murder spree

 

[CC_Lemming]

You do realize that bump stocks were deemed legal by Obamas ATF right? Obama that champion of the second amendment. So i guess we can blame him

I'm not looking for a petty political or ideological debate. I don't care if it was Obama's policy or not. I am asking whether they should be legal. Period. I couldn't care less whose fault it is that they're legal. I couldn't be any less concerned with assigning blame. I would like us to be able to talk about solutions, and to do that I'd first like us to get past the inane and utterly maddening idea that we cannot do a damn thing.

 

[TheNewNU]

You do realize that bump stocks were deemed legal by Obamas ATF right? Obama that champion of the second amendment. So i guess we can blame him

A bump fire is a shooting technique, I can get the same effect as a bump stock using one of my belt loops. you can't outlaw belt loops.

 

[mwulf]

In China, 30 people were killed in a single knife murder spree

Jesus how in the hell is that even possible...

 

[inWV]

"I do not understand how new laws are going to stop this sort of thing."

I'm not surprised. Every time some mass shooting bad enough to catch the public eye occurs, invariably people start talking about what we can do to fix it. The Vegas shooting revealed that the perpetrator used a bump stock. Well, some thought, sensibly enough: maybe we could outlaw bump stocks. After all, if the perp didn't have a bump stock he wouldn't have inflicted as much carnage. Why does a citizen need to have the ability to buy a bump stock for his semi-automatic rifle? What purpose do they serve such that it could possibly outweigh the danger associated with them?

Gun advocates offered no response to these questions, at least not that I am aware of. (My recollection is that even the NRA was open to the idea of banning bump stocks.) However, we did hear a lot about Second Amendment rights, as we always do. Then, also characteristic of this debate, the gun advocates said people will do bad things regardless. As you say, you don't see how a law could have prevented this sort of thing.

Well, the answer is quite obvious in the case of the Vegas shooting. If bump stocks are illegal, people will not readily have access to them. That means they are harder to get, maybe hard enough that the shooter wouldn't have had one in the first place. "Yeah, but bad people will do bad things regardless." "The criminal is one who breaks laws." There is no stopping one intent on doing evil." "He will find a way." "He will use a car or a pressure cooker," you insist.

First of all, will he really? If he doesn't have ready access to a deadly device, you can't sit there and say with certainty that he will still do the bad thing regardless. Sometimes I intend to do things, and then I realize how hard it would be to do the said thing, and so I give up the doing of the thing. Maybe the disgruntled man would just kill himself instead of killing thirty other people? You don't know that he won't. You can't know that he won't. So the pressure cooker rejoinder is far from a knock-down argument.

Well, let's grant the pressure cooker rejoinder for the sake of argument. Does the pressure cooker do as much damage as the gun with the bump stock? It's hard to see how it could, but even granting that it could, I think you would have to concede that it would take a level of foresight and planning to achieve the same level of carnage. Why is that? Because we have every reason to believe it would not be as effective, otherwise the perpetrator would have used a pressure cooker in the first place. A car would also be less effective. What reason do I have to think this apart from the fact that the perpetrator himself chose a gun rather than a car or a pressure cooker? Cars are made to transport people from A to B. Yeah, you can use a car to kill a person, but it's a lot clumsier than a gun. Same thing goes for the pressure cooker, but more so. Guns are made to harm. That is their function. No, that doesn't mean they are bad things or cannot be wielded responsibly. It means just that: they are made with the purpose of inflicting harm.

For some reason gun advocates seem to be shocked when people point out this obvious fact. Guns are intended to harm. Sometimes they seem utterly unable to accept it. It seems as if they want to insist guns are not intended to harm and that it's only the person wielding the gun who does the harm. When a deranged person or a person with ill intent uses a gun to harm, the person does the shooting, causes harm, and in doing so uses the tool for its intended use. But gun advocates insist it's never the gun's fault because guns don't kill people, people kill people. No. People kill people, and many times they do that with guns, and when guns kill people at the scale of dozens, we shouldn't be surprised. Why? Because they're using the tool for its intended use, especially when that tool is a semi-automatic rifle.

But, according to gun advocates, we should be surprised. I don't know if they're really unable to accept that guns are intended to harm or whether they are expressing shock over how fallen the world is and how evil some people can be. In any case, the real messed up thing is that they insist, as you essentially have, that we are helpless to do anything about it. There is just not a single thing we can do to prevent tragedies like this from happening, apart from arming every citizen or every teacher to stop the perpetrator in the act.

We can't ban bump stocks. We can't make it harder to get guns. We just can't, can't, can't, can't, can't...

Thanks CC.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

I'm not looking for a petty political or ideological debate. I don't care if it was Obama's policy or not. I am asking whether they should be legal. Period. I couldn't care less whose fault it is that they're legal. I couldn't be any less concerned with assigning blame. I would like us to be able to talk about solutions, and to do that I'd first like us to get past the inane and utterly maddening idea that we cannot do a damn thing.

Like I have stated. Chemical castration for the party that excuses these cultures. That will be more effective than anything else. Sounds simple... But we just can't can't can't do that, because they might get offended someone is taking away their "right" to continue to taint the gene pool with the disrespect for other humans ideology.

 

[Huskerfan2112]

Jesus how in the hell is that even possible...

Its possible because its the guy not the gun. Its the guy not the knife. Its the guy. Because evil exists and it finds a way.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

I'm not looking for a petty political or ideological debate. I don't care if it was Obama's policy or not. I am asking whether they should be legal. Period. I couldn't care less whose fault it is that they're legal. I couldn't be any less concerned with assigning blame. I would like us to be able to talk about solutions, and to do that I'd first like us to get past the inane and utterly maddening idea that we cannot do a damn thing.

Well, not now anyway

 

[RedMyMind]

Jesus how in the hell is that even possible...

Knives have a built in sound suppressor, literally silenced

 

[Harry Caray]

I'll leave it at this

In Australia from 1983 to 1996 there were 13 mass shootings where more than 5 people were killed by guns, since enacting their regulations there have been 0. Does that mean it's perfect? No, there have been other styles of attacks, but in general the country is safer.

Once America decided it was okay that Sandy Hook happened it was over, regulating guns would make the country as a whole safer, I don't think anyone would argue that. Does it remove some of your individual safety to protect yourself? Yep. American culture is me first, most don't give a damn about others outside of their family, that is their values. You can talk about the decline of the traditional family, but that's happening around the entire world and we see far less violence outside of America. It's not about some arcane view of what a family should be, it comes to people not being willing to put others ahead of themselves.

It's not one single thing, there isn't one simple solution. When people feel isolated or uncared for or alienated they are prone to lash out. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try. Lets start with voluntary gun buy backs, let's let the government say it's okay to let private companies buy guns and have a method of destruction that is approved and observed. All the cost goes on those companies and individuals who care, which will be the Dems obviously. Then lets start investing in our communities, lets be willing to give a little to make society better as a whole, and that means on both sides.

There are over 300 million guns in the U.S. There were only 2 million guns in Australia in 1996. A buy back program here wouldn't even make a dent.

We have more gun violence here because we have a shit-ton more guns. Gun ownership was never a big deal in other developed countries. Mainly because they are very densely populated compared to the United States. Here in the U.S., many people live in rural areas where you cannot depend on a quick response from the police, so you have to be prepared to protect yourself.

 

[CC_Lemming]

A bump fire is a shooting technique, I can get the same effect as a bump stock using one of my belt loops. you can't outlaw belt loops.

If you had a choice: would you choose a belt loop, something that is supposed to secure a belt around your waist, or a bump stock?

Secondly, why did the Vegas shooter buy a bump stock if he could have just used a belt loop?

 

[PeliniTheCrutch]

No one needs a car that goes over 85. Thats the max limit on our roads. Why not require automakers to limit cars to 85? Better yet, lets limit high performance engines. NY and CA can limit them to 30mph so we can all be safe!
.

Apples and oranges. You clearly weren’t a big physics/calc/common sense guy.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

Apples and oranges. You clearly weren’t a big physics/calc/common sense guy.

Since when are stupid comparisons not allowed in this thread

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

If you had a choice: would you choose a belt loop, something that is supposed to secure a belt around your waist, or a bump stock?

Secondly, why did the Vegas shooter buy a bump stock if he could have just used a belt loop?

I would use neither if I had to defend myself against a bunch of people. Gun control and accuracy is way more important.

 

[mwulf]

Since when are stupid comparisons not allowed in this thread

Message boards wouldnt exist without them

 

[mwulf]

Hate saying this "only" but how were only 17 killed

 

[Yolobomb]

cant see how anyone can disagree with this

View embedded media

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon"

 

[Husker4real]

I think our nation decided long ago that these events are acceptable losses.

 

[JohnRossEwing]

View embedded media

Hate saying this "only" but how were only 17 killed

I always think this too but I think the fact is...it is not easy to shoot people when they are running around. I know a lot of people like to think they are some dead-eye shot...but they aren't.

 

[JohnRossEwing]

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon"

Pretty sure that was the name of a WWF Wrestler in the late 80's...sooooo.