Gun sales skyrocket after Colorado massacre

[claud3]

totally agree, i am an advocate for gun sells i guess lol

[TRF]

Yeah I'm not shocked that this is happening.

I'm not for taking away guns or anything, but that whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is moronic.


Tapatalking from my bed. Ya mutha says hi.

[F34R]

Yeah I'm not shocked that this is happening.

I'm not for taking away guns or anything, but that whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is moronic.


Tapatalking from my bed. Ya mutha says hi.

If its moronic, let's here your take on it? Guns, they kill people without being used by a person?

[-Kwesnoth-]

Good. I'm glad to see this. The more guns criminals and crazies know are out there will make them think twice about pulling a gun on a person that might have gun and training on how to use it.

[Fon]

I can guarantee you, 100% that if they make a nationwide ban on guns in the US, the crime rate will sky rocket. Just remember this.

[claud3]

Its fact mate, that it would happen

[Fenix]

If I lived in the states and this shit happened near me I'd sure as hell run out and get one. (Dont think that stuff is allowed here, though I guess if massive shooting happened close by I'd overlook it)

Yeah, but stupid people without guns are harmless...see what I did there?

Stupid people without guns can still harm someone pretty bad without a gun, you dont NEED a gun to do serious harm

[Vulgotha]

Dial 911 if u have a problem.
Grab a 1911 if u have an emergencies.

Lol that is hilarious, I'll have to remember this.

[Sufi]

now instead of having to deal with the off chance that a psycho walks into your theater...

...you get to deal with the reality that you're in a theater surrounded by a bunch of idiots with guns.

quite the trade off.

I'd rather have an idiot beside me with a gun who may end up saving my life than...not having one.

[F34R]

I'd rather have an idiot beside me with a gun who may end up saving my life than...not having one.

I'll try and be there.

[Sufi]

I'll try and be there.

lol but it's sad that no one was there that could've saved them...it's like, where are all these gun owners when you need them?

Then again, I'm sure not all owners keep it with them all the time.

[Completely Average]

its the case of, i have more guns than you

But i believe the USA will kill each other one off these days and the out side world will just sit back and say " TOLD YOU SO "

Don't worry, by the time the US kills itself off the UK will be mostly asian and arabic.


And actually, if the trend of the past 20 years continues for another 20 years then the UK murder rate will be higher than the US. Your overall violent crime is already 5 times higher than the US. Walking the streets of Detroit is safer than a midnight stroll through Manchester or London.



You know, there is a country in the Western Hemisphere with nearly identical gun control laws to the UK. Care to guess what that country is?

MEXICO

So, if you want to see how well your British style gun bans work, come visit Ciudad Juraez sometime. Bring kevlar.

[The Black Wolf]

Furthermore, I'm unsure how AK47's and AR15's are "excessive" for self defense. Explain this rationale to me, if you please. You clearly aren't taking issue with the 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm round respectively- just the platforms.

Different guns have different power.

Furthermore, for the love of all that is holy, explain to me exactly what constitutes an "Assault Rifle" because I and legions of others are dying to know why this nefarious term means anything. Is it a rifle that shoots a smaller round? Is it a magazine fed rifle? A weapon designed for and\or by a military?

What? I never said anything about "Assault Rifles".

And if so, why is this a problem? The weapon was designed to kill other human beings, clearly, so to me that fits the role of self defense just fine.

I have a big problem with this statement. Self Defense DOES NOT always mean killing a person.

If a guy attacks you with his fists, all you have to do is shoot him in the knees, conflict ended. It's the same way if he had a gun. Disable him, but killing is not always necessary.

Now I can understand if killing is an absolute must, but a lot of times it's not. The Jayvon Martin case comes to mind. He didn't have to kill that boy even if it was in self defense. Shooting him is one thing, but that man shot to kill.

Like I said, I'm not hoping for gun bans, for gun regulations.

[MATRIX 2]

naw. I've seen these "properly trained" individuals...
I've seen the "requirements" to get a license to carry.

someone with the IQ of a rottweiler would have no problem passing.

And there are a lot more idiots in the world than there are psychos. Simple truth.

Right, because Police Officers receive training that is so superior, right?

:rollseyes:

You would be shocked if you know how lax the standards are for most police departments weapons qualifications. Also most police officers aren't interested in guns so they have little reason to practice with their weapon outside of qualification.

And I'd rather take my chances with a fully armed theater than with a completely unarmed theater.

-shrugs-

I bought my Sig TACOPS 1911 this past week in no small part because of the renewed interest in the "gun control" debate by politicians after the shooting.

I've been procrastinating getting a handgun due to cost, but this pushed me over the edge finally.

Contrary to what many think, an armed society is not dangerous nor has this traditionally been the case.


So now I'm well protected. Also I anticipated this kind of reaction, so there's a fair chance prices will shoot up nation wide in the next few months as people scramble to arm themselves. So I saved myself some money I figure.


@Blackwolf

The 2nd Amendment, contrary to the ATF's interpretation, was not crafted by the founding fathers for "sporting purposes" and "self defense only". The explicit objective of our leaders was to arm a populace so that the government would think twice before abusing them.

Put differently, "Self defense" was always meant to possibly include the government or some other body. This is why it is meant to be a "God given and inalienable right".

Furthermore, I'm unsure how AK47's and AR15's are "excessive" for self defense. Explain this rationale to me, if you please. You clearly aren't taking issue with the 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm round respectively- just the platforms.

Furthermore, for the love of all that is holy, explain to me exactly what constitutes an "Assault Rifle" because I and legions of others are dying to know why this nefarious term means anything. Is it a rifle that shoots a smaller round? Is it a magazine fed rifle? A weapon designed for and\or by a military?

And if so, why is this a problem? The weapon was designed to kill other human beings, clearly, so to me that fits the role of self defense just fine.

Did you really just buy a bastardized 1911, from Sig nonetheless?

Yeah, but stupid people without guns are harmless...see what I did there?

Do you have any idea how much worse Colorado could have been if the guy used Moltov cocktails or pipe bombs instead of his guns?

Or perhaps poision gas/chemical weapons.

For all his planning he did a very poor job of carrying out his intended goals.

lol but it's sad that no one was there that could've saved them...it's like, where are all these gun owners when you need them?

Then again, I'm sure not all owners keep it with them all the time.

You know there are restrictions on where you can carry. In CO, movie theaters above a certain seating capacity are off limits for legal carry.

Also even if somebody in the audience did have a gun on them, they are under no obligation to draw it and use if if they don't feel confident in their ability to make a proper shot.

Different guns have different power.



What? I never said anything about "Assault Rifles".



I have a big problem with this statement. Self Defense DOES NOT always mean killing a person.

If a guy attacks you with his fists, all you have to do is shoot him in the knees, conflict ended. It's the same way if he had a gun. Disable him, but killing is not always necessary.

Now I can understand if killing is an absolute must, but a lot of times it's not. The Jayvon Martin case comes to mind. He didn't have to kill that boy even if it was in self defense. Shooting him is one thing, but that man shot to kill.

Like I said, I'm not hoping for gun bans, for gun regulations.

When you draw your weapon (Police or the average joe) you draw it to shoot to kill. You never shoot to wound. That is the entire point of carrying a gun. You draw it and intend to use it as a last resort, you don't use lethal force to give warning shots or non life threatening wounds. You want the neutralize the threat as fast as possible. Which means that you want to shoot for center mass to incapacitate. Whether that incapacitation is lethal or not is another matter.

And gun regulations are just another hidden term for gun bans/exclusions.

Of course it doesn't help when you have idiots trying to create these gun laws that know nothing about firearms. So you end up with stupid guns laws (not sure if there is even such a thing as good gun laws) that make no sense, and unjustly penalize the law abiding citizens.


One example is the recently renewed call for bans on "assault weapons" like AR/AK pattern rifles. Yet handguns are fine?

They say its a capacity issue, no need for more than 10 rounds in a rifle? Yet there are pistols with standard capacity magazines that can hold up to ~20 rounds.

Lethality? Sorry, but these intermediate rounds pose less of a threat than full power rifle rounds in most cases.

Overpenetration? The .223/5.56 round has been proven to have the least penetration of any common caliber (rifle, pistol, or shotgun) which makes it the ideal round for home protection.

I can go on and on all day about how stupid these "gun regulations" are.


Then you have statements like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1697708.html

I wish it would happen. A 2 week strike. Announce all the locations where LEO's would go on strike. Then just wait and see which areas suffer more crime than others. Hint, its the areas where people can't exercise their 2A rights as freely as they can in other areas.

And of course the guy is so spineless he takes it back:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...p_ref=politics

[The Black Wolf]

I don't mean regulations as in "ban this kind of gun" but I meant regulations as in "screenings".

They need to screen people so guns won't end up in the wrong or unstable people's hands.

[MATRIX 2]

I don't mean regulations as in "ban this kind of gun" but I meant regulations as in "screenings".

They need to screen people so guns won't end up in the wrong or unstable people's hands.

Good luck doing that in a fair, effective and economically feasible manner. It cannot be done. You can only ban guns completely (too late) or make them available to pretty much everyone and count on the mass armament to deter criminals.

Of course if we actually properly enforced the existing laws this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

[-Kwesnoth-]

I have a big problem with this statement. Self Defense DOES NOT always mean killing a person.

If a guy attacks you with his fists, all you have to do is shoot him in the knees, conflict ended. It's the same way if he had a gun. Disable him, but killing is not always necessary.

Now I can understand if killing is an absolute must, but a lot of times it's not. The Jayvon Martin case comes to mind. He didn't have to kill that boy even if it was in self defense. Shooting him is one thing, but that man shot to kill.

As is the point of carrying a gun. If you don't intend to use that gun to its lethal potential, then just use a taser. If I got into a conflict where I had to pull my gun, its cause I can't handle it with my fists and I have to use lethal force. Like Vulgotha said, guns where designed and built to kill, not wound.

[The Black Wolf]

As is the point of carrying a gun. If you don't intend to use that gun to its lethal potential, then just use a taser. If I got into a conflict where I had to pull my gun, its cause I can't handle it with my fists and I have to use lethal force. Like Vulgotha said, guns where designed and built to kill, not wound.

But they can be used either way.

I understand if there's no other way than to end a person's life, but there are so many instances in which guns were unnecessary or killed without enough reason.

[podsaurus]

Ta-da! Cheaper than a gun and quite good at taking someone down.

[Old Man Gamer]

I have a big problem with this statement. Self Defense DOES NOT always mean killing a person.

If a guy attacks you with his fists, all you have to do is shoot him in the knees, conflict ended. It's the same way if he had a gun. Disable him, but killing is not always necessary.

Now I can understand if killing is an absolute must, but a lot of times it's not. The Jayvon Martin case comes to mind. He didn't have to kill that boy even if it was in self defense. Shooting him is one thing, but that man shot to kill.

If you're going to pull a gun you better be prepared to pull it out and use it. If you're going to use it you better be prepared to kill. It you can't do that then don't buy a gun.

I don't want to have to worry about someone trying to hunt me down two years later when they get released from prison.

[keefy]

Knees or legs are a hard target to hit. Chest is much larger target to aim for and hit.
In the heat of the moment I doubt there will be much time for fine aiming leg shots.

[-Kwesnoth-]

But they can be used either way.

I understand if there's no other way than to end a person's life, but there are so many instances in which guns were unnecessary or killed without enough reason.

Let me know next time you get attacked or threatened that you have an overabundance of control so as to preform a non-lethal put down with a gun.

Who is to judge on whether or not that person felt justifiably threatened enough to use lethal force. No one can be in a persons shoes when they kill someone, so no one really knows the circumstances.

[Wrath]

now instead of having to deal with the off chance that a psycho walks into your theater...

...you get to deal with the reality that you're in a theater surrounded by a bunch of idiots with guns.

quite the trade off.

So true, man.

Americans and their gun obsession...

[Old Man Gamer]

So true, man.

Americans and their gun obsession...

It's one of our rights here so of course we take it seriously. All people should take their rights seriously.

[DeviousOne]

The more guns criminals KNOW are out there the least likely they are bound to try to rob you.

My dad gave me this when i got my first house



Never has anyone tried anything keeps people from knocking on my door thats for sure. only time anyone will talk to me is if im in front of my house doing some yard work or car things