Elementary school shooting
- Thread starter bryan_kilco
- Start date
xFkx
gain induction
yeah, in the second vid, when the dude jizzed in his pants after turning a barrel into a colander, I finaly understood what all of this is really about.
Grå Värld
Member
- Sep 12, 2012
- 76
- 0
- 6
Kids have the right not to be killed at school by adults with guns who are not really defending themselves.
Less access to guns has to make some difference in the probability of an adult with anger or mental health issues killing one person or being able to kill many many more.
drew_drummer
Dancefap
kaomao
Member
This guy is retarded
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...iolent-video-games-as-filthy-pornography.html
Games are not to blame!!
btw the blamed game (kindergarten killer) is here
http://www.flash-game.net/game/1497/kindergarten-killer.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...iolent-video-games-as-filthy-pornography.html
Games are not to blame!!
btw the blamed game (kindergarten killer) is here
http://www.flash-game.net/game/1497/kindergarten-killer.html
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
Guys, you don't get it.
This is ok:
And this is not:
This is also ok:
But this is not:
This is also fine:
This is not:
Seriously how can you argue with such brilliant logic?
Educate me (I'm asking this in a total non-sarcastic and genuine way)
how close to each other those guns are ? As a noob, I would say the second example would be very close and except a more ergonomic handle they are pretty close to be the same model in essence, but the other guns don't really look like a perfect copycat with cosmetic change, for example it looks like they have bigger magazines which IMO is a big factor in mass murder and criminal use, it is totally not the same if you have to add rounds manually every 2 shots, compared to changing magazine every 12 or whatever. What about rate of fire, can you shoot as fast as your trigger finger can with both ? Also, if those are modified full automatic (or 3 round burst semi auto) rifles down to round by round semi auto, it is a factor as well if you can easily modify them back to full auto. I don't think most people would do that though, I agree. Do we know what the Newtown guy used precisely ?
Also, there is something I don't get about american people rushing gun stores to get rifle guns before they get banned... Do they plan in owning a weapon officially declared illegal at home ? Wouldn't it be recorded in a database anyway and traced and wouldn't they be asked to give them back or modify them to get to a legal standard ? This sounds retarded to me
EDIT : btw I don't know what people say around, but I don't think having the first version is fine either, to any of those 3. If you're a hunter then yeah, if it is to keep in a safe at home, a gun would be enough and easier to handle by most people
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
Ok, obviously you have no clue about guns and policy's in the United States. That's cool.
video 1: You can't buy this period unless your doing so illegally already. Select fire weapons are not allowed to be used by your average citizen. If you do possess the ability to own one, your subject to A LOT of government regulations (and fees).
video 2: Is not an automatic rifle. I get why your confused, but that video is just another semi auto rifle. I've fired an ak varient (I say varient because you can't again buy a full auto AK) and you can easily shoot it that fast pulling the trigger over and over. But I would also like to point out that Bill is retired police and as such has the ability to own firearms that the public doesn't have access to.
video 3: Portable self defense and the service pistol for the police (which like I said Bill is retired police). Criminals (I say criminals because again you can't just go into a store and buy them this way) have them with giant ass extended magazines and some that are full auto. I'm trying to figure out why these guns are bad though?
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
Sure no problem. The first gun is called a ruger 10/22, the second gun is also a ruger 10/22. Both are chambered in 22lr:
Both are rimfire (compared to the last 2 guns). Rimfire means instead of striking the center primer of the cartridge like a centerfire rifle does the firing pin actually strikes the rim of the cartridge.
The second gun, unless I'm mistaken (I don't think I am) is actually the same length from end of stock to end of barrel as the first (pretty positive it legally has to be).
There are some differences though, the second has a silencer. However knowing who made the gun's stock has something to do that. This is something your average citizen can just have. The people that built that particular model (it's a demo model as far as I know) have the proper permission from the gov to have that on the front of that firearm. The second also has a 30 round magazine inside while the first has a 10 (the firearm sells with a 10 round magazine from the factory). HOWEVER, you can put that exact same magazine in the first.
Essentially though the gun is the exact same gun in every way except that silencer (which I went over). The bullet will come out of the end at the same speed and both will shoot just as fast as each other when you use hi cap magazines (legal in most of the country). This is why I was being so sarcastic when I posted this up.
Here is the one I own, I have kept it stock from the factory:
The newtown guy used a glock (or 2 don't remember) semi automatic 10mm handgun, a Sig Sauer 9mm and a bushmaster AR15. The last picture is that exact gun. I'll get to that later though.
To address the second part of your post. It's super illegal already to make a machine gun (what you are talking about when you talk about 3 round and full auto guns) unless you are licensed by the government to do so... and that is not an easy thing to do. So when you talk about your average joe making a full auto firearm you are talking about a felony (at least one, probably more like a few though). Second, while I am not a gun smith it is my understanding that the AR15s that are available in stores now are constructed in a way that you would have to have some pretty specialized tools and replacement parts to get them to go full auto.
I'm not one of those people, but I can explain the mentality:
The 1994 crime bill which banned the sale of high cap magazines (over 10 rounds) did not cover magazines that were made prior to september 1994. The 1994 crime bill also outlined features that were not allowed on a semi automatic shotguns and rifles. However these laws only pertained to again, firearms manufactured after sept 1994. Why? Because those in charge didn't want to make criminals out of 30 million gun owners in the USA.
So people are buying these guns in fear that if there is another crime bill either their guns will sky rocket in value (and they will) OR so they can have them before they become illegal to buy. This is the mentality.
I do want to address the other 4 guns though:
Those 2 shotguns are identical except the black one might hold 2 more shotshells in the tube (hard to say from the pic honestly) and the barrel is probably the shortest legal length of 18.5" compared to the camo one (which is probably a 28" field barrel). In terms of everything else however they really are the same gun. Same manufacturer (mossberg), same action (semi auto) and take the same size shotshells.
Ok and now for those last 2 guns, which is probably what makes me lol the most:
Ok so that first one is chambered in 30-06 the second is .223/5.56x45mm. Lets look at the difference:
Going from left to right you are looking at .22lr (first 2 guns fire this), 9mm (one of the rounds that the NT killer used in a handgun), 45acp, .223, 30-06, a shotgun shell (12 guage) and a tube of lip gloss.
The first gun fires the 30-06. It is a semi automatic rifle meaning it shoots as fast as the bushmaster under it. However the round that the hunting rifle takes is quite a bit larger.
I will concede however that since the 30-06 is a larger cart, the biggest magazines that I know of will only hold 10 rounds for that particular gun. It comes stock with a 4 round as far as I know. While the bushmaster has a 30 round on it. My guess is 30 rounds of 30-06 would ad a lot of weight to that gun making it a little impractical for what it is marketed for (long range shots).
But my point in comparing the 2 guns is that the first shoots a larger round, semi auto, and is mag fed just like the AR. But it doesn't look evil so... I'll also tell you that the round count probably doesn't matter because loading the next mag doesn't take more than a few seconds.
Anyhow, my point essentially was outlawing a firearm based on looks is quite silly/retarded.
But that is exactly what our lawmakers do.
This is a pretty good read if you like. I agree with what he has to say. He obviously has much more experience/knowledge than I do on the subject:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
MarcusGHedwig
Member
30-06 is a big fucker to be sure, but that's why it's so popular for single target big game hunting - against a bunch of fleshy humans I'd be much more afraid of a 223 rifle with a big mag simply because it'd be easier to get more rounds downrange with greater accuracy, and a single 223 round can def. be lethal if it fragments/tumbles as they're designed to do (but often don't)
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
Every variation of .223 that is out there has an equivalent 30-06. Hollow point included.
I got to be honest with you, if I had no choice I would much rather be hit with a .223 than a 30-06.
My point was not ballistics though. It was the knee jerk reaction that's going on right now that "oh that gun looks evil, but those others don't so lets ban it" mentality.
PhilTheBeard
"The Beard"
Getting shot with a single 30-06 would be absolutely devastating. But for big game like bears a 30-06 or .308 round does a lot more damage then the .223/5.56 round. But I agree with Loren, banning gun's alone on their looks is stupid. Considering you can take many standard hunting rifles and modify them to look like a tactical weapon.
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
To expound on what phil said I have one of these:
If I wanted to (and I don't, I use mine for hunting and blasting clays and that's it) I could make it look like this. Would just have to buy the new pump handle, barrel shroud, barrel and pistol grip.
See why banning guns based on looks is dumb?
If I wanted to (and I don't, I use mine for hunting and blasting clays and that's it) I could make it look like this. Would just have to buy the new pump handle, barrel shroud, barrel and pistol grip.
See why banning guns based on looks is dumb?
Melb_shredder
Orpheus: Melodic Death
JHA
Member
- Apr 2, 2008
- 309
- 0
- 16
Actually the point is the first two are just assault rifles. Yes, even the first one is an assault rifle not a sub/machine gun (the RK 62 is actually a variant from the second one, AK 47). TheWinterSnow compared them to a bow and arrow, obviously they are a lot more powerful. He probably just got overwhelmed by how powerful semi-autos can actually be and decided to not comment at all. I'm not confused, the last two are semi-auto and the first one is auto with semi-auto switch. "Why they are bad?" All of them are too powerful for the Average Joe to possess. They are military/police guns. The killer in this case had a Glock too, reportedly the same one the police use.
!!!!
I have a .243 Winchester and the thing fucking EXPLODES watermellons, one shot, no problem.
Couldn't imagine getting hit with that, let alone anything bigger.
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
MarcusGHedwig
Member
Oh I completely agree - to clarify, what I meant was that I feel in a crowded area a shooter could kill way more people with a lower caliber higher capacity weapon, making it more dangerous
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
Thanks for the precise answer,
Why do you keep talking about banning guns for their look only ? What would the laws be based on ? If both are the same design and technically the same guns, then surely the laws would apply on both of them, just as much as it does right now, or did I miss something ?
All that does to me is that one shouldn't be able to have such a gun if he/she has no good reason for it, first or second.
I have to adress something though, that will sound silly to you, but the look, even though doesn't have any value once the gun is in your hand / a criminal's hand, could have for the crazy people and enhances the feeling of superiority. I don't say it's a major problematic when we're talking gun laws in general, but that's apparently the type of guns used in the few biggest school shooting evens. The whole problem with USA and guns is the whole mentality going on with it. Guns are so normal there that having a gun that looks like a military one shows how fascinating it is for people to own one. That's this fascination, and the whole crime rate (above 4 times more homicides - all included, not talking about guns/knives/bare hands - than here), makes it the obvious choice, it's like there is absolutely no reason why a gun wouldn't be the absolute first idea, and so far no one has convinced me than guns are not a big part of the problem. And to me all the "but you have other efficient ways of killing people" argument, although defendable in details, doesn't seem to stand the studies of mass murders history. If people go on battlefields with guns, it's because it's the easiest and most practical way to kill, and since you have only one life in the "game" of mass murders, psychos just go for this obvious choice, after all that's the purpose of a gun, they are not designed for people to have fun with, they are design to kill people, and then people decide to have fun with it. I totally get the problem is deeper than just "guns are allowed" because there are examples of countries with a normal crime rate and a gun-friendly policy. However, this doesn't seem to be the case in USA, so it's more than obvious this is not a correct argument to defend the gun policy. Also, someone could argue we don't even know if those countries could have an even lower crime rate, after al. If having more guns would make life safer, then no one would have put a no-gun policy ever in the very first place. I have very very hard times imagining how could USA be the absolutely only rich country with such a high homicide rate, and high gun homicide rate, along with the absolute dominance in terms of mass murders, and not have it related to its unique gun friendly policy. This seems way too big to not investigate in this direction.
BTW, the fact that in USA laws are not retroactive when it comes to gun, doesn't seem reasonable to me, because those laws would be based upon safety reason in the very first place (the fact it works or not is not the point). The fact they seem righteous or not is a debate in itself, but what I'm talking about in this sentence, is that such laws should be retroactive. If a car manufacturer requests cars to return for a check for safety reason, you have to do it. But apparently lobbies are too strong for this to happen. So, the result will be : "but, studies have showed that, if anything, every gun law in the direction of restriction didn't have the effect intended". I think it is obvious if in the short term all it does is increase semi auto rifle sales. People will argue "but it's not fair if you bought it at a time when it was legal, and I have invested time and money in it" but we're talking lethal weapons, not a bike or a musical instrument. If a country decides it's not safe anymore all-in-all to allow for semi auto rifles in every other house, then it should happen and it wil eventually stabilize in the long term (if it does, but as I stated before, this is not the point here)
For the record I find the idea of target shooting entertaining, although I would find it funnier with bows, or very long distance shooting. My ex father-in-law even was a gun fanatics in france (and he told me himself owning guns in france is a pain because if he were in the states it would take like 10 times less efforts) and he apparently (I didn't know) owned 12 guns because he was "that" gun fanatic, making his own bullets at home etc. And I find the videos even about bigass shotguns quite informative. All I think is that it's not normal IMO that everyone can arm himself with no restriction (yeah yeah I know, you need papers blablabla but all I see is that everyone can have so many guns at home) and I didn't find it normal that at home my ex father-in-law stored a dragunov and a few other guns at home, in a safe or not. Even myself I have an air soft P99 replica he bought me long ago, and enjoyed shooting targets with it. I find the fact this is a skilled based game quite entertaining, and I get all of it, in an ideal world only very sane people would own guns, however this is not the case and I don't believe having stores where you can buy hundreds of ammo is reasonable.
Why do you keep talking about banning guns for their look only ? What would the laws be based on ? If both are the same design and technically the same guns, then surely the laws would apply on both of them, just as much as it does right now, or did I miss something ?
All that does to me is that one shouldn't be able to have such a gun if he/she has no good reason for it, first or second.
I have to adress something though, that will sound silly to you, but the look, even though doesn't have any value once the gun is in your hand / a criminal's hand, could have for the crazy people and enhances the feeling of superiority. I don't say it's a major problematic when we're talking gun laws in general, but that's apparently the type of guns used in the few biggest school shooting evens. The whole problem with USA and guns is the whole mentality going on with it. Guns are so normal there that having a gun that looks like a military one shows how fascinating it is for people to own one. That's this fascination, and the whole crime rate (above 4 times more homicides - all included, not talking about guns/knives/bare hands - than here), makes it the obvious choice, it's like there is absolutely no reason why a gun wouldn't be the absolute first idea, and so far no one has convinced me than guns are not a big part of the problem. And to me all the "but you have other efficient ways of killing people" argument, although defendable in details, doesn't seem to stand the studies of mass murders history. If people go on battlefields with guns, it's because it's the easiest and most practical way to kill, and since you have only one life in the "game" of mass murders, psychos just go for this obvious choice, after all that's the purpose of a gun, they are not designed for people to have fun with, they are design to kill people, and then people decide to have fun with it. I totally get the problem is deeper than just "guns are allowed" because there are examples of countries with a normal crime rate and a gun-friendly policy. However, this doesn't seem to be the case in USA, so it's more than obvious this is not a correct argument to defend the gun policy. Also, someone could argue we don't even know if those countries could have an even lower crime rate, after al. If having more guns would make life safer, then no one would have put a no-gun policy ever in the very first place. I have very very hard times imagining how could USA be the absolutely only rich country with such a high homicide rate, and high gun homicide rate, along with the absolute dominance in terms of mass murders, and not have it related to its unique gun friendly policy. This seems way too big to not investigate in this direction.
BTW, the fact that in USA laws are not retroactive when it comes to gun, doesn't seem reasonable to me, because those laws would be based upon safety reason in the very first place (the fact it works or not is not the point). The fact they seem righteous or not is a debate in itself, but what I'm talking about in this sentence, is that such laws should be retroactive. If a car manufacturer requests cars to return for a check for safety reason, you have to do it. But apparently lobbies are too strong for this to happen. So, the result will be : "but, studies have showed that, if anything, every gun law in the direction of restriction didn't have the effect intended". I think it is obvious if in the short term all it does is increase semi auto rifle sales. People will argue "but it's not fair if you bought it at a time when it was legal, and I have invested time and money in it" but we're talking lethal weapons, not a bike or a musical instrument. If a country decides it's not safe anymore all-in-all to allow for semi auto rifles in every other house, then it should happen and it wil eventually stabilize in the long term (if it does, but as I stated before, this is not the point here)
For the record I find the idea of target shooting entertaining, although I would find it funnier with bows, or very long distance shooting. My ex father-in-law even was a gun fanatics in france (and he told me himself owning guns in france is a pain because if he were in the states it would take like 10 times less efforts) and he apparently (I didn't know) owned 12 guns because he was "that" gun fanatic, making his own bullets at home etc. And I find the videos even about bigass shotguns quite informative. All I think is that it's not normal IMO that everyone can arm himself with no restriction (yeah yeah I know, you need papers blablabla but all I see is that everyone can have so many guns at home) and I didn't find it normal that at home my ex father-in-law stored a dragunov and a few other guns at home, in a safe or not. Even myself I have an air soft P99 replica he bought me long ago, and enjoyed shooting targets with it. I find the fact this is a skilled based game quite entertaining, and I get all of it, in an ideal world only very sane people would own guns, however this is not the case and I don't believe having stores where you can buy hundreds of ammo is reasonable.
