[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

The only thing worse than one gunman, is two. Thinking more guns would've improved the scenario is Hollywood movie fantasy.

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Don't you think that's a bit loaded ( no pun intended). How about throwing in an atomic bomb to thicken the plot.

It was loaded indeed. But I took your post as you meant in all situations. I personally can't think of a situation involving a gunman intent on causing mayhem and death that I wouldn't want an opposing person or myself at my defense with similar fire power.

Police and military being the only ones with firearms should never be on the table as an option either.

My wife and I were talking ealiery and I think that getting a concealed carry permit is rather easy. Making much more intensive firearm training part of the requirement to carry seems to make sense. Something along the lines of 32 hours (made up of 4 Saturdays) of range and classroom training. Training that gives all applicants a taste of intense situations. This isn't just a complete and pass class either. It will have requirements to meet in order to pass and obtain a carry permit. Just like LEO and Military, permit holders should be required to requalify every so often. (every 3-5 years or so) That way you really have to want it and once you get it you will be much more proficient with firearms in various situations.

This won't happen though, its too logical and simple. Silly when a little perspective is shed on this though... On several government construction sites I have personnel on we are required to provide a site super with 30 hours of OSHA safety training and all the workers are required to have 10 hours of the same training. I spent less than 4 hours in a CWP class.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Wow! So, you don't see hunting as a violent act, regardless of necessity, toward a living animal? You don't see wars as a violent act toward another person, country, faction, entity?

You are completely missing the theme is this gun debate. You completely do not understand what's at the core of a gun and what they are used for.

Again with the aversion of my questions. Do you eat meat? How do you think those animals are slaughtered, anesthetics? War is a necessity, without it, you wouldn't be safe in your home. I hate to break it to you, without the US, the whole planet would be at war. Canada would be invaded, Britain, and any other allies. Ruling with fear is the only way to rule, complete government control didn't work out for <insert any dictatorship>, did it. Freedom, with fear is the only way you can control the masses.

Socialism only works when someone has your back.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

It was loaded indeed. But I took your post as you meant in all situations. I personally can't think of a situation involving a gunman intent on causing mayhem and death that I wouldn't want an opposing person or myself at my defense with similar fire power.

Well, A great example of what you're asking for occurred during the North Hollywood Shootout. It's really not as ideal as you imagine.

Police and military being the only ones with firearms should never be on the table as an option either.

That never was the only option but, if I'm not armed, I'd rather have a trained professional working on my behalf than a anonymous gun carrier.

My wife and I were talking ealiery and I think that getting a concealed carry permit is rather easy. Making much more intensive firearm training part of the requirement to carry seems to make sense. Something along the lines of 32 hours (made up of 4 Saturdays) of range and classroom training. Training that gives all applicants a taste of intense situations. This isn't just a complete and pass class either. It will have requirements to meet in order to pass and obtain a carry permit. Just like LEO and Military, permit holders should be required to requalify every so often. (every 3-5 years or so) That way you really have to want it and once you get it you will be much more proficient with firearms in various situations.

But then you have those in society who do not want a CCW to be their savior. You see, you eliminate options for non-carrying citizens when you arm a select few who think it's their duty to save the day.

This won't happen though, its too logical and simple. Silly when a little perspective is shed on this though... On several government construction sites I have personnel on we are required to provide a site super with 30 hours of OSHA safety training and all the workers are required to have 10 hours of the same training. I spent less than 4 hours in a CWP class.

That's not universal though. CCW is not easy and all but impossible in many states.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

Again with the aversion of my questions. Do you eat meat? How do you think those animals are slaughtered, anesthetics? War is a necessity, without it, you wouldn't be safe in your home. I hate to break it to you, without the US, the whole planet would be at war. Canada would be invaded, Britain, and any other allies. Ruling with fear is the only way to rule, complete government control didn't work out for <insert any dictatorship>, did it. Freedom, with fear is the only way you can control the masses.

Socialism only works when someone has your back.

Now this guy is moving toward nutrition. Again, violence is violence. A bullet ripping through flesh, even if it's gonna be a damn good burger is still violence. I cannot make this any more simple for ya.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Now this guy is moving toward nutrition. Again, violence is violence. A bullet ripping through flesh, even if it's gonna be a damn good burger is still violence. I cannot make this any more simple for ya.

You're against hunting, yet eat what comes from it. I can't make it any simpler for you, you have backed up ZERO of what you've said, and contradicted yourself the entire discussion.

[ideliver]

chlorine...phosgene and sarin....it's so easy...mix in some fertilizer for shits and giggles...every contractor on the planet has sticks of TNT...just in case you want a really big boom to go along with certain death with ingestion of sarin gas

any schmuck can weaponize almost anything...all it takes is a little motivation

just add some biologicals to the mix...forget it

Or...take a differerent route....cyberwarfare...take out the local power grid and sit back watch the humans kill each other

Remember...we are only a natural/manmade disaster away from anarchy...remember Katrina??? the police went home to protect their own...

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

You're against hunting, yet eat what comes from it. I can't make it any simpler for you, you have backed up ZERO of what you've said, and contradicted yourself the entire discussion.

Where did I state i was against hunting? Keep reaching for a cause, bud.... When you have nothing, post a large font and bold it.

[Seminole]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Well, A great example of what you're asking for occurred during the North Hollywood Shootout. It's really not as ideal as you imagine.

Not even close. The North Hollywood gunmen were armed in full plate body armor and had fully automatic rifles with armor piercing rounds. The police were only armed with service pistols. Hardly a case of being on equal ground. It wasn't until officers went to gun shops and armed themselves with more powerful weapons and SWAT showed up that they were able to stop the gunmen.

The North Hollywood Shootout is the reason why you'll notice most squad cars are equipped with a shotgun or AR-15 between the front seats.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Where did I state i was against hunting? Keep reaching for a cause, bud.... When you have nothing, post a large font and bold it.

You stated you're against acts of violence, stated ANY bullets through flesh is an act of violence, therefore you're against hunting, or you're contradicting yourself.

You call names, state complete ignorance, avert questions with substance, and can't grasp that I have already taken in exactly what you think, and got you to contradict yourself multiple times. You sir, are the genius in this discussion.

There wasn't an argument, you spew ignorance, and provide no evidence, and call real evidence not viable. I however, provide real concrete evidence, and you ignore it.

Don't call someone out when you can't back up what you say, I have no issue finding evidence to support my theory, where's yours?

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by Seminole

Not even close. The North Hollywood gunmen were armed in full plate body armor and had fully automatic rifles with armor piercing rounds. The police were only armed with service pistols. Hardly a case of being on equal ground. It wasn't until officers went to gun shops and armed themselves with more powerful weapons and SWAT showed up that they were able to stop the gunmen.

The North Hollywood Shootout is the reason why you'll notice most squad cars are equipped with a shotgun or AR-15 between the front seats.

The point I was making was that two individuals held back an entire police force who didn't have the firepower initially but, certainly had the man power and vantage point. It did noting.

[Mr Tonka]

BTW, read my posts as not attacking you. Just talking here.

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Well, A great example of what you're asking for occurred during the North Hollywood Shootout. It's really not as ideal as you imagine.

NHSO was nothing of the sort. The police, as many of them as there were on the scene were severely out gunned. LAPD policies and armament were vastly altered due to that incident. Mind you, the weapons the perps were wielding are all but illegal to own with out quite a bit of licensing and permitting. Had the police been properly armed or the perps been armed in the same way as the police the outcome would likely have been much different.

Originally Posted by 48Laws

That never was the only option but, if I'm not armed, I'd rather have a trained professional working on my behalf than a anonymous gun carrier.

Correct, you never suggested that as an answer. I actually had that typed in but my last post was with an ipad and somehow that bit got deleted. Question though, if you're not armed and a trained professional is unavailable what would you have happen then?

Originally Posted by 48Laws

But then you have those in society who do not want a CCW to be their savior. You see, you eliminate options for non-carrying citizens when you arm a select few who think it's their duty to save the day.

I can't speculate as to what people think their duty is or isn't. But i'm not clear on how carriers are eliminating options for non-carrying citizens. How so?

Originally Posted by 48Laws

That's not universal though. CCW is not easy and all but impossible in many states.

This is true, but can you get on board with the concept? This solution will likely decrease the amount of CCW holders and give the ones who are carrying better judgement when they diem it necessary to use their firearm.

Universal or not, it doesn't change the fact that i spent less than 4 hours with a "qualified" instructor to be able to carry a concealed firearm on my person in FL. And in order for me to work on a government job in FL i'd have to complete a certified 10 hour OSHA class. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Don't get me wrong some classes are better than others and i didn't mind sitting in for less than 4 hours because i'm very familiar with firearms and can safely handle them. But 3 wives of buddies of mine all went out one night and took the class, also less than 4 hours. I've seen them shoot and not one of them should carry a pistol unless it's unloaded and they are going to throw it at someone.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

You stated you're against acts of violence, stated ANY bullets through flesh is an act of violence, therefore you're against hunting, or you're contradicting yourself.

Actually, I never stated I was against anything. But would an individual really have to admit he/she is against acts of violence if they are a mentally healthy individual? Also, you have some way of connecting points. You're making less sense as you progress or rather digress. I simply stated what violence looks like. That's not me taking a stance for or against anything. If I tell you my favorite color is green does that mean I hate blue???

You call names, state complete ignorance, avert questions with substance, and can't grasp that I have already taken in exactly what you think, and got you to contradict yourself multiple times. You sir, are the genius in this discussion.

You can call yourself a king but that doesn't mean it's true. You claim victory so often and state what you're doing but I'm not seeing any of it. I think your really insecure in this discussing hence your bizarre responses to such easy topics.

There wasn't an argument, you spew ignorance, and provide no evidence, and call real evidence not viable. I however, provide real concrete evidence, and you ignore it.

I addressed your evidence if you think cut and pasting qualifies as a comprehensive view on gun violence in this nation. Its not concrete. It's paper thin.

Don't call someone out when you can't back up what you say, I have no issue finding evidence to support my theory, where's yours?

So, now you think you have a theory? Do you know the requirements for a a scientific theory?

[Seminole]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

The point I was making was that two individuals held back an entire police force who didn't have the firepower initially but, certainly had the man power and vantage point. It did noting.

MPOWER said:

I personally can't think of a situation involving a gunman intent on causing mayhem and death that I wouldn't want an opposing person or myself at my defense with similar fire power.

And your reply was:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Well, A great example of what you're asking for occurred during the North Hollywood Shootout. It's really not as ideal as you imagine.

MPOWER specifically states he wants "a person or myself at my defense with similar fire power." How is the North Hollywood Shootout a good example of that when the police were so outclassed?

The police had zero advantage. The gunmen had weapons capable of punching straight through their squad cars (which is how many people were wounded), walls, and pretty much anything in their path. The police could have had 300 officers there and still would have been at a disadvantage. When you have two gunmen, both armed with fully automatic rifles and drum magazines holding 100 rounds, they can keep a huge force at bay.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Actually, I never stated I was against anything. But would an individual really have to admit he/she is against acts of violence if they are a mentally healthy individual? Also, you have some way of connecting points. You're making less sense as you progress or rather digress. I simply stated what violence looks like. That's not me taking a stance for or against anything. If I tell you my favorite color is green does that mean I hate blue???

There you are talking about colors. See I can do the same thing.

You can call yourself a king but that doesn't mean it's true. You claim victory so often and state what you're doing but I'm not seeing any of it. I think your really insecure in this discussing hence your bizarre responses to such easy topics.

I consider the winner of an argument the one that provides factual evidence. You, consider the winner the one that posts their opinion as vague as they can without actually stating what you believe, so you can't be proved wrong. Sorry buddy, I'm a pro at that and saw right through it.

I addressed your evidence if you think cut and pasting qualifies as a comprehensive view on gun violence in this nation. Its not concrete. It's paper thin.

That cut and paste was directly from government websites.

So, now you think you have a theory? Do you know the requirements for a a scientific theory?

The theory I have is what this country was founded on, you're the one with a theory that banning guns would work, wothout any evidence pointing to it.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

NHSO was nothing of the sort. The police, as many of them as there were on the scene were severely out gunned. LAPD policies and armament were vastly altered due to that incident. Mind you, the weapons the perps were wielding are all but illegal to own with out quite a bit of licensing and permitting. Had the police been properly armed or the perps been armed in the same way as the police the outcome would likely have been much different.

Sure it was. If two well armed men can hold off an entire police force, including swat, regardless of their caliber of guns, would you still argue that more guns in a situation will yield favorable results? It didn't. It prolonged it and made for a more volatile situation.

Correct, you never suggested that as an answer. I actually had that typed in but my last post was with an ipad and somehow that bit got deleted. Question though, if you're not armed and a trained professional is unavailable what would you have happen then?

Again, hypotheticals aren't answerable. But I can tell you I've been traversing this earth for quite a while unarmed in many places and it served me well. If you want to hypothesize about a worst case scenario, I would like you to do the same for the best case scenario.

I can't speculate as to what people think their duty is or isn't. But i'm not clear on how carriers are eliminating options for non-carrying citizens. How so?

Quite simple. If a violent incident can be avoided and/or at least delayed by the absence of an anonymous ccw jumping to conclusions, I'd imagine most would prefer that route as opposed to the other option, which is to possible allow an anonymous citizen take the position that is for those in LE.

This is true, but can you get on board with the concept? This solution will likely decrease the amount of CCW holders and give the ones who are carrying better judgement when they diem it necessary to use their firearm.

In theory.

Universal or not, it doesn't change the fact that i spent less than 4 hours with a "qualified" instructor to be able to carry a concealed firearm on my person in FL. And in order for me to work on a government job in FL i'd have to complete a certified 10 hour OSHA class. Just doesn't make sense to me.

It doesn't make sense because you are erroneously comparing to very different entities. Now, if you said you have to train longer with one weapon type compared to another, then you'd have an argument.

Don't get me wrong some classes are better than others and i didn't mind sitting in for less than 4 hours because i'm very familiar with firearms and can safely handle them. But 3 wives of buddies of mine all went out one night and took the class, also less than 4 hours. I've seen them shoot and not one of them should carry a pistol unless it's unloaded and they are going to throw it at someone.

Which returns to my point. Me as a citizen would want a trained professional making life-altering decisions when they arise as oppose to one of those folks. That's what I meant by non-carrying citizens eliminating their options.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by ideliver

chlorine...phosgene and sarin....it's so easy...mix in some fertilizer for shits and giggles...every contractor on the planet has sticks of TNT...just in case you want a really big boom to go along with certain death with ingestion of sarin gas

any schmuck can weaponize almost anything...all it takes is a little motivation

just add some biologicals to the mix...forget it

Or...take a differerent route....cyberwarfare...take out the local power grid and sit back watch the humans kill each other

Remember...we are only a natural/manmade disaster away from anarchy...remember Katrina??? the police went home to protect their own...

I think TNT and chemical attacks full under a different category. Sure, it would of arguably been equally effective at killing and maiming in a movie theater [provided no one pulled the fuse, or the device malfunctions, or the user got some part of the mixture wrong considering it's probably difficult as well as dangerous to test an explosive with toxic chemicals]. Besides the fact that something like that is dangerous to the user, it's hardly seems practical in most situations.

I'd be willing to bet that a considerable amount of violent crime happens on impulse. It's difficult to get mad and impulsively learn how to make a bomb, find ingredients, and then plan how your going to coordinate the attack. It's also harder [I'd imagine] on the mind to physically kill someone ie. knife, axe, etc. Sure someone who is contemplating murder, might carry it out at whatever means necessary, but getting 'dirty' in the process must be a deterrent. I saw a reference to chainsaws earlier, a bit extreme, but it would be difficult to conceal or get very far without people wondering wtf you're doing and immediately avoid you.

With a gun it only takes the squeeze of a trigger to end someones life, close up or at range. You could conceal it and get places you couldn't with most any other weapon. It's more complicated to make a bomb than to turn a gun to fully automatic, making it obviously more destructive.

You can argue all day, what the intent was behind the invention of the gun. It comes down to one thing, killing. As someone who's lived their entire life in Texas, and really, really likes guns, I think the availability to civilians is pretty absurd. I don't think guns should be completely outlawed, but something should change.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by Seminole

MPOWER said:



And your reply was:


MPOWER specifically states he wants "a person or myself at my defense with similar fire power." How is the North Hollywood Shootout a good example of that when the police were so outclassed?

Whether there is one officer or 300, they are a person designated to protect the public. Their mission is the same. To protect the public as a whole. One or 300 cops working to protect me doesn't change the mission.

The police had zero advantage. The gunmen had weapons capable of punching straight through their squad cars (which is how many people were wounded), walls, and pretty much anything in their path. The police could have had 300 officers there and still would have been at a disadvantage. When you have two gunmen, both armed with fully automatic rifles and drum magazines holding 100 rounds, they can keep a huge force at bay.

How are helicopters, vantage points, hundreds of armed, al beit lower caliber weapons, officers not an advantage? You see, terrorism, and that was terrorism, is designed to cause confusion. But the confusion that occurred that day wasn't a disadvantage to an entire LAPD force. It took time for them to harness their talent.

[Sauce]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

There you are talking about colors. See I can do the same thing.




I consider the winner of an argument the one that provides factual evidence. You, consider the winner the one that posts their opinion as vague as they can without actually stating what you believe, so you can't be proved wrong. Sorry buddy, I'm a pro at that and saw right through it.




That cut and paste was directly from government websites.



The theory I have is what this country was founded on, you're the one with a theory that banning guns would work, wothout any evidence pointing to it.

Lol, dude, 48Laws, you're getting absolutely OWNED here. I don't even feel the need to jump in with an argument, CollinsE90 is handling this.

All I will say is it is in our constitution and our right to be able to bear arms. Anything can be a weapon. What I find odd is that whether guns are legal to carry or not, the criminal-the one killing people, still has them. I feel as if it only limits the people that SHOULD be carrying.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by Sauce

Lol, dude, 48Laws, you're getting absolutely OWNED here. I don't even feel the need to jump in with an argument, CollinsE90 is handling this.

All I will say is it is in our constitution and our right to be able to bear arms. Anything can be a weapon. What I find odd is that whether guns are legal to carry or not, the criminal-the one killing people, still has them. I feel as if it only limits the people that SHOULD be carrying.

If you're argument would include so many lols, dudes, and 'owned' I don't think you'd even need to bother 'jumping in'.

Our constitution was written over 200 years ago, by mortal men.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

If you're argument would include so many lols, dudes, and 'owned' I don't think you'd even need to bother 'jumping in'.

Our constitution was written over 200 years ago, by mortal men.

But, the part of the constitution that is flawed isn't the 2nd Amendment. If we did a better job at preventing the import of illegal firearms into the wrong hands, some of the issues would be resolved.

When you deal with 300 million people, not everything can go perfectly. You have to do what you can to help as a whole, not fix one single issue by punishing everyone as a group.

[SouthpawE46]

I own all 3 of the firearms that James used in the attack, but that doesn't make me a criminal at all.

Criminals will always find a way to inflict pain on the good people of society. If no weapons ever existed, they would find a way. That's why gun control doesn't work. It takes guns away from the law abiding citizens.

How many massacres occur in areas where there are many guns, such as police stations, military bases, gun shops, gun ranges (besides the occasional murder/suicide), and gun shows. I also find it interesting that the areas where guns are banned, such as that theatre, colleges, malls, etc, are the locations where these massacres take place. Why? Because criminals prefer unarmed victims. If ONE person in that crowd had a LTC of CCW (license to carry, or conceal carry permit), the outcome could've been drastically different.

I'm a hardcore supporter of the 2nd amendment, and an owner of 9 guns in the state with the strictest gun laws, where CCW permits are extremely scarce, where bullet buttons are required on "assault weapons", and where ANY magazine is limited to 10 rounds. Why? Personal defense, home defense, national defense. Not to mention that it's a Constitutional Right, and a right not exercised is a right lost.

If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective.

[ideliver]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

I think TNT and chemical attacks full under a different category. Sure, it would of arguably been equally effective at killing and maiming in a movie theater [provided no one pulled the fuse, or the device malfunctions, or the user got some part of the mixture wrong considering it's probably difficult as well as dangerous to test an explosive with toxic chemicals]. Besides the fact that something like that is dangerous to the user, it's hardly seems practical in most situations.

I'd be willing to bet that a considerable amount of violent crime happens on impulse. It's difficult to get mad and impulsively learn how to make a bomb, find ingredients, and then plan how your going to coordinate the attack. It's also harder [I'd imagine] on the mind to physically kill someone ie. knife, axe, etc. Sure someone who is contemplating murder, might carry it out at whatever means necessary, but getting 'dirty' in the process must be a deterrent. I saw a reference to chainsaws earlier, a bit extreme, but it would be difficult to conceal or get very far without people wondering wtf you're doing and immediately avoid you.

With a gun it only takes the squeeze of a trigger to end someones life, close up or at range. You could conceal it and get places you couldn't with most any other weapon. It's more complicated to make a bomb than to turn a gun to fully automatic, making it obviously more destructive.

You can argue all day, what the intent was behind the invention of the gun. It comes down to one thing, killing. As someone who's lived their entire life in Texas, and really, really likes guns, I think the availability to civilians is pretty absurd. I don't think guns should be completely outlawed, but something should change.

the CO killing was well planned...without access to guns...the only difference would have been his method of destruction....

look at the destruction that 19 motivated individuals caused on 9/11 with boxcutters....and the subsequent wars were part of their plan