Bushmaster .223

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    Similarly...

    http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM125803&R=125803

    http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/search.jsp?Ntt=Gun+control--Canada.&Ntk=Subject_Search_Interface

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from undead. Show undead's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

     May I take this moment to remind everyone that the shooter did not use the rifle on the kids. I do not know if he used it on his mom but he did not take it out the trunk of the car when he walked into the school.

     That tells me two things:

     1. He knew his way around guns. Anyone who's fired small and large firearms knows that large firearms, although they do more damage, are harder to aim, especially if you have to move them while firing.

     2. He was fully intent on killing as many people in the school as he could. By taking the handguns, which were easier and quicker to aim, he guaranteed that he gave himself the ability to hit every target, and his aim was impecable. Apparently he only missed one completely and I believe a second person was taken to the hospital and survived with serious injuries (the two others taken to the hospital did not survive).

     Think about that, for a moment. 3 kids out of 27 people actually got to the hospital. Only one of them survived. This guy was as deadly as you can get with a gun and knew what he was doing. I can't even begin to guess why anyone would do such a thing but he was intent on doing it and, regretably, pulled it off.

     Ban the guns! is the battle cry from politicians whenever something like this happens. Do you seriuosly believe for one second that these guns can't be bought on the black market? I don't know about the rest of you but when I was in high school, everyone knew who to talk to get access to the black market. It's incredibly easy if you have the money, and that's the scary part because if the honest people don't have the money, the criminals do.

     Carefull what you wish for, you just might get it.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    its an AR-15.

    Timothy Mac Veigh killed 168 with fertilizer and kerosene! Should we outlae those too?

    To say it's only for killing people is assinine. There are thousands of gun collectors and enthusiast who just have a natural love for guns. Why should we start taking innocent peoples rights away if, as everyone admits it will not prevent these tyoes of events?

    Whether it would have lessened the toll is arguable. He could have walked in with molotov cocktails or IEDs and done even more damage!

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    It is futile to expect liberals to respond intelligently on this issue, as they don't on most other issues as well.

    The liberal is about government control, not solving problems.

    The only tool government can bring to bear is more restriction, greater law enforcement presence.  It is worth thinking about these approaches for sure, but keep in mind that is ALL government can offer.  Government cannot, and will not solve the problem.  Government continues to focus in the wrong place, on further restricitions on the law-abiding citizen.

    I can't help but think that the promise of stopping every crime, stopping every shooter is a fools errand, and creates felonies out of what was once lawful activity for no particular reason. 

    Better to lessen the regulations so that a larger portion of the population is able to defend itself against such terrors.  Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.  More government is not the solution to every problem.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    How the fcuk do you know if outlawing the very weapon that the murderer used wouldn't have changed the outcome of even one child's life?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Because any semi-auto rifle or handgun can inflict enough damage to kill. Doesn't have to be an assault rifle. A .45 handgun, for example, can kill quite effectively.

    That being said, I feel assault rifles should be banned again. But let's not kid ourselves....banning them isn't going to solve this horrific issue. People are still going to kill in mass quantities with another choice of weapons.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It wont solve the problem, but it may save some lives and that is a good thing.  These kind of guns belong with the military or law enforcement.  The collective fun of those that like to go "bang-bang" shredding targets is not worth the potential for loss of life these instumentalities carry within them.  We ban machine guns and sawed off shotguns why are these any different?

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It is futile to expect liberals to respond intelligently on this issue, as they don't on most other issues as well.

    The liberal is about government control, not solving problems.

    The only tool government can bring to bear is more restriction, greater law enforcement presence.  It is worth thinking about these approaches for sure, but keep in mind that is ALL government can offer.  Government cannot, and will not solve the problem.  Government continues to focus in the wrong place, on further restricitions on the law-abiding citizen.

    I can't help but think that the promise of stopping every crime, stopping every shooter is a fools errand, and creates felonies out of what was once lawful activity for no particular reason. 

    Better to lessen the regulations so that a larger portion of the population is able to defend itself against such terrors.  Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.  More government is not the solution to every problem.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A stupid ideological reponse per usual.  Even conservatives accept that the primary goal of government is to keep people safe from threats external and internal. Let's all arm ourselves to the teeth and live in armed camps...  Quite the "freedom" you expouse.  But no freedom from fear.  The logical result of your thought is a Hobbesian nightmare of uncontrolled liberty, selfishness and violence.  You want to live in Somalia... The rest of us would prefer something better.  No right is unlimited, especially one that can cause loss of life.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    To live in a free society you have to be willing to give up some liberties !

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from undead. Show undead's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You are just plain wrong on a number of things.

     

    The guy used the assault weapon to kill his victims.

    Connecticut shooter Adam Lanza used a weapon in the Bushmaster AR-15 family to shoot all of his victims at a school in a rampage that killed 20 young children and six staff members on Friday in Newtown, Connecticut, police said. He then used a handgun to kill himself.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/16/usa-shooting-connecticut-idUSL1E8NG2Q720121216

     

    Rifles are exponentially more accurate and easier to aim which is why every military in the world uses them as their primary weapon. Every SWAT team in the country uses long-barreled weapons for breaching and clearing rooms. They are more accurate, easier to aimand inflict much more damage than a pistol. They also carry more rounds than any other type of weapon which requires less time for reloading.

     

    No one is calling for banning all weapons. There is a call to ban certain weapon systems that are military type and civilians have no reason to own them. Their potential for killing and destruction on a large scale far outweigh their civilian uses. Military weapons are designed as an offensive weapon and have no business in the hands of civilians.

    If you make them illegal with severe penalties for possession then even black marketers won't deal them.

    And you don't have to rely on banning just the weapons. You also ban the high-powered rounds used for those military grade weapons.

    [/QUOTE]


     Actually, I'm quite right.

     Speaking from my own experience between the two, If I'm using the rifle then I'm looking to hit targets at a distance. I would not use it at close range. Handguns in close quarters, for me, are much more effective, especially where I know where to shoot and can shoot from the hip.

     I don't need to be holding the gun in front of me, and that would allow me to do far more damage in less time than someone who does.

     Incidentally, your SWAT teams use rifles because by the time a person gets over the shock of a flash/bang grenade going off the SWAT team will have them cuffed. If I have protection from the flash/bang, though, I'd get most of the guys in the room before they even knew where to point their rifles.

      Oh, and I could not stop laughing at the sentence I highlighted. Do you think for one second that a criminal is going to give a damn about severe penalties for possession? They're out to kill someone, what difference do you possibly think being busted for possession is going to make to them?

     A question: If you ban all the assault weapons, what's to stop the military from taking over your town? I don't know about you but I don't trust them that much.

     I do apologize to 12 and all the other veterans who believe that the real world should work like the military but that will never happen. Chaos reigns in the real world. Learn to live with it or be eaten by it.

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from undead. Show undead's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

     100 years down the road, who knows. What I do know is that right now I do have to worry about a gang or two trying to take over a neighborhood.

     You want a high kill count on both sides, give the public the weapons 12 cited. You want a lower kill count, give John Q. Public the more powerfull weapons.

     I don't know about the rest of you but I don't go through life expecting that nothing will happen. I keep my eyes and ears open as I fully expect something to happen. You can't go through life with no worries even if you do give up all your liberties.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    Because any semi-auto rifle or handgun can inflict enough damage to kill. Doesn't have to be an assault rifle. A .45 handgun, for example, can kill quite effectively. That being said, I feel assault rifles should be banned again. But let's not kid ourselves....banning them isn't going to solve this horrific issue. People are still going to kill in mass quantities with another choice of weapons. 




    That's a simplistic view of the diffrences between carrying an assualt rifle with a 30 round magazine and a pistol that carries 8-10 rounds.

     

    Handguns are much less accurate and their bullets have much less energy. Victims have a much better chance of surviving an initial non-fatal wound from a pistol than they do from an assualt weapon.

    Rifles, by design, are more stable to fire and the weight of the barrel allows them to stay on target after firing. Pistols, by virtue of a shorter, lighter barrel 'jump' off target when fired which requires re-acquiring and re-aiming which takes more time.

    Handguns have to be reloaded more frequently and most are not able to penetrate heavy wood doors or concrete block.

    There's a reason military and SWAT use these weapons rather than a sidearm. They are much better at what guns are designed to do...kill. 

    [/QUOTE]

    There are extended magazines that hold much more than 8-10 round for handguns. 

    My point is if someone wants to go on a killing spree, not having an assault rifle isn't going to stop them. Evil people will use whatever they can to kill.

    Is this particular situation this a55hole was so close to these kids that handguns could have killed just as many. He shot many 3-4 times. You're telling me a .45 at close range 3-4 hits isn't going to kill a child?

    You also realize that while it would be great to ban assault rifles that isn't going to get the ones that are out there off the streets. So while it would be a step in the right direction to not put more on the street there are still more than enough for these types of things to continue to happen. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd rather be shot with a 9mm handgun than with a Bushmaster .223. 

    There were no survivors for a reason.

    Yes, there is nothing to stop someone from going on a rampage.  But lets try to make it a little more difficult for them to easily kill so many people.  Let's try to make it a little more difficult than going into his mother's closet to get an weapon that is as close to the perfect killing weapon as you can get.

    Let's make it illegal to own guns that are designed for the specific purpose of hunting down people and killing them in as efficient method as possible.

    We know that there are drunk drivers out there.  But guess what - it's illegal to drink and drive. 

    We know that more people get killed in car accidents than guns - but we have speed limits, and safety equipment in our cars.  We wear seat belt and have air bags in the our cars.

    If the shooter didn't have a Bushmaster .223, fewer kids would have gotten killed.  If that guy in Colorado didn;t have an AR-15, fewer people would have been killed.  If they had only had shotguns, many fewer people would have been killed.

    You're trapped.  You've got to choose to go left or right.  On left is a guy with a .45 hand gun.  On the right is a guy with a Bushmaster .223.  Which way do you run?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    Because any semi-auto rifle or handgun can inflict enough damage to kill. Doesn't have to be an assault rifle. A .45 handgun, for example, can kill quite effectively. That being said, I feel assault rifles should be banned again. But let's not kid ourselves....banning them isn't going to solve this horrific issue. People are still going to kill in mass quantities with another choice of weapons. 




    That's a simplistic view of the diffrences between carrying an assualt rifle with a 30 round magazine and a pistol that carries 8-10 rounds.

     

    Handguns are much less accurate and their bullets have much less energy. Victims have a much better chance of surviving an initial non-fatal wound from a pistol than they do from an assualt weapon.

    Rifles, by design, are more stable to fire and the weight of the barrel allows them to stay on target after firing. Pistols, by virtue of a shorter, lighter barrel 'jump' off target when fired which requires re-acquiring and re-aiming which takes more time.

    Handguns have to be reloaded more frequently and most are not able to penetrate heavy wood doors or concrete block.

    There's a reason military and SWAT use these weapons rather than a sidearm. They are much better at what guns are designed to do...kill. 

    [/QUOTE]

    There are extended magazines that hold much more than 8-10 round for handguns. 

    My point is if someone wants to go on a killing spree, not having an assault rifle isn't going to stop them. Evil people will use whatever they can to kill.

    Is this particular situation this a55hole was so close to these kids that handguns could have killed just as many. He shot many 3-4 times. You're telling me a .45 at close range 3-4 hits isn't going to kill a child?

    You also realize that while it would be great to ban assault rifles that isn't going to get the ones that are out there off the streets. So while it would be a step in the right direction to not put more on the street there are still more than enough for these types of things to continue to happen. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd rather be shot with a 9mm handgun than with a Bushmaster .223. 

    There were no survivors for a reason.

    Yes, there is nothing to stop someone from going on a rampage.  But lets try to make it a little more difficult for them to easily kill so many people.  Let's try to make it a little more difficult than going into his mother's closet to get an weapon that is as close to the perfect killing weapon as you can get.

    Let's make it illegal to own guns that are designed for the specific purpose of hunting down people and killing them in as efficient method as possible.

    We know that there are drunk drivers out there.  But guess what - it's illegal to drink and drive. 

    We know that more people get killed in car accidents than guns - but we have speed limits, and safety equipment in our cars.  We wear seat belt and have air bags in the our cars.

    If the shooter didn't have a Bushmaster .223, fewer kids would have gotten killed.  If that guy in Colorado didn;t have an AR-15, fewer people would have been killed.  If they had only had shotguns, many fewer people would have been killed.

    You're trapped.  You've got to choose to go left or right.  On left is a guy with a .45 hand gun.  On the right is a guy with a Bushmaster .223.  Which way do you run?

    [/QUOTE]


    Right. It is all about mitigating damages. Your never going to prevent 100 percent, but if you can lower the death toll in any situation it is worth it. What is the value of one human life after all?  Isn't it interesting how many anti choicers think having no regulations on guns is okay?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It is futile to expect liberals to respond intelligently on this issue, as they don't on most other issues as well.

    The liberal is about government control, not solving problems.

    The only tool government can bring to bear is more restriction, greater law enforcement presence.  It is worth thinking about these approaches for sure, but keep in mind that is ALL government can offer.  Government cannot, and will not solve the problem.  Government continues to focus in the wrong place, on further restricitions on the law-abiding citizen.

    I can't help but think that the promise of stopping every crime, stopping every shooter is a fools errand, and creates felonies out of what was once lawful activity for no particular reason. 

    Better to lessen the regulations so that a larger portion of the population is able to defend itself against such terrors.  Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.  More government is not the solution to every problem.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A stupid ideologcal reponse per usual.  Even conservatives accept that the primary goal of government is to keep people safe from threats external and internal. Let's all arm ourselves to the teeth and live in armed camps...  Quite the "freedom" you expose.  But no freedom from fear.  The logical result of your thought is a Hobbesian nightmare of uncontrolled liberty, selfishness and violence.  You want to live in Somalia... The rest of us would prefer something better.  No right is unlimited, especially one that can cause loss of life.

    [/QUOTE]

    Government can't protect us from every threat.  Heck, government doesn't even try.

    Your stupid ideological rant is that government controls everything.  How stupid is that.

    Throw around as many red herrigs as you like.  It will not change thatthe only thing government will do is to further encumber law-abiding citizens, worsening the problem.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To live in a free society you have to be willing to give up some liberties !

    [/QUOTE]

    We keep giving up liberties, and the problem keeps getting worse.  At some point, one comes to the conclusion that your point of view is wrong.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelldog1. Show kelldog1's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To live in a free society you have to be willing to give up some liberties !

    [/QUOTE]

    We keep giving up liberties, and the problem keeps getting worse.  At some point, one comes to the conclusion that your point of view is wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly what liberties have you ceded?.... except your right to think rationally!....and that's your own fault!

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To live in a free society you have to be willing to give up some liberties !

    [/QUOTE]

    We keep giving up liberties, and the problem keeps getting worse.  At some point, one comes to the conclusion that your point of view is wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Skeeter - way back when there was no need for assault rifles because assault rifles didn't exist.

    Please explain how giving up assault rifles is the same as giving up liberty?

    Isn't losing your life the ultimate loss of liberty?  I can certainly live with slightly less liberty if it means fewer people dying in mass shooting sprees.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To live in a free society you have to be willing to give up some liberties !

    [/QUOTE]

    We keep giving up liberties, and the problem keeps getting worse.  At some point, one comes to the conclusion that your point of view is wrong.

    [/QUOTE]


    As usually skeeter your point of view is in the minority. Thank goodness !

    Anyway name a liberty that you had to give up . BTW don't say candy for Lent neither !

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    Where is your evidence that more gun control is a solution? If you do not have any then why are you wasting time suggesting something that you do not is a solution. Why don't you even look for it? You aren't really interested in saving the lives of kids in a school. You are just a dumb fvcking politcal hack.




    Here ya go numbnuts, a couple of examples that directly show a link between strict gun laws and a reduction in gun related homicides in general and the elimination of massacres entirely.

     

    So I'll wait for all your 'evidence' that refutes these studies.

     

    Australia is an excellent example. In 1996, a "pathetic social misfit," as a judge described the lone gunman, killed 35 people with a spray of bullets from semiautomatic weapons. Within weeks, the Australian government was working on gun reform laws that banned assault weapons and shotguns, tightened licensing and financed gun amnesty and buyback programs.

    At the time, the prime minister, John Howard, said, "We do not want the American disease imported into Australia." The laws have worked. The American Journal of Law and Economics reported in 2010 that firearm homicides in Australia dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006. In the 18 years before the 1996 laws, there were 13 gun massacres resulting in 102 deaths, according to Harvard researchers, with none in that category since.

    Similarly, after 16 children and their teacher were killed by a gunman in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, the British government banned all private ownership of automatic weapons and virtually all handguns. Those changes gave Britain some of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world on top of already strict rules. Hours of exhaustive paperwork are required if anyone wants to own even a shotgun or rifle for hunting. The result has been a decline in murders involving firearms.  

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html?_r=0     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

    "If we do not see what we do not wish to see, then it is untrue" 

    - machnh1, newster, bobof**k, skeetard, tfeio, tvoter

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Australia?  That's your proof?

     

     

Share