The Oregon shooting

[Thaluikhain]

you don't need full auto assault rifles

Automatic weapons are very heavily restricted, and are almost never used in crimes. As in, 2 or 3 civilians commit crimes with them a century...barring semi-automatics illegal modified into full automatic ones.

Glad to know about that one then

On the other hand though, automatic weapons aren't really that much better at killing people under many circumstances. An assault rifle has the option for automatic fire (nowdays often in a burst), but also the option for semi-automatic fire which is commonly used. The commonwealth version of the FAL only had semi-automatic fire capability (barring sticking a matchstick into the mechanism in the right place to get full auto fire), and that is still in use today. Even the nations that replaced it did so fairly recently, British troops used it in the Falklands and Australian troops used it in Vietnam.

For that matter, endless murders in the US.

When in reality Toxic masculinity is not being happy with yourself and trying to fit into some other system of masculinity rather than accepting your masculinity on a multitude of terms and traits available.

Well yes, sticking people into arbitrary ideas of masculinity is part of the problem people talking about toxic masculinity are talking about.

Yeh that is the problem

Not sure if you mean that the problem is people being stuck into arbitrary ideas of masculinity or that people are saying that's the problem.

I mean the shooter sees the media being fine villanising them even before the crime and being fine with calling them monsters or suggesting they're some how responsible already for many of the worlds ills. Hence they decide they're already the villain so they don't care about being seen as one by doing such terrible acts.

I don't see this at all. However, if you mean that they feel that society is against them, rather than it actually being so, in the same way that certain types feel not criminalising homosexuality is persecuting straight people, then I'd agree. Especially the ones that right long manifestos about how special they are and how cruel a world that doesn't recognise their awesomeness is.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

Literally no one cares. I think it's disingenuous to say we do. Collectively we have decided that free and easy access to guns is more important than a couple of deaths a year. We can all follow where this story is going to go because we've seen it a million times before like any zombie plot ever.

Shooting
Outrage
"Too early to talk about legislation"
Mental health?
Either ignored or deflected, if deflected usually by Feminists "toxic Masculinity"
Bunch of sad crap about the victims
We find out the dude was super crazy in some way.
Everyone but family, ceases to care because something shiny happened on twitter.

Boom, done we no longer have to ever talk about USA mass shootings. Can we talk about games again?

 

[Josh123914]

You are unlikely to have a mass shooting with a Philippine Guerrilla Gun (despite it being pretty cool)

inb4 someone actually does use one and fucks us all.

I just casually googled what that is.

Jeez....

I'd actually be impressed. It looks like a pellet gun with a hunting rifle taped to the end of it.

We must go cheaper.

I'd buy it.

Looks like an attempt at making a magic wand gone nuclear.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Literally no one cares. I think it's disingenuous to say we do. Collectively we have decided that free and easy access to guns is more important than a couple of deaths a year. We can all follow where this story is going to go because we've seen it a million times before like any zombie plot ever.

Shooting
Outrage
"Too early to talk about legislation"
Mental health?
Either ignored or deflected, if deflected usually by Feminists "toxic Masculinity"
Bunch of sad crap about the victims
We find out the dude was super crazy in some way.
Everyone but family, ceases to care because something shiny happened on twitter.

Boom, done we no longer have to ever talk about USA mass shootings. Can we talk about games again?

I'd tend to agree, with the exceptions that talking about masculinity isn't a deflection when talking about predominantly male crimes (nor "toxic" a bad description when mass shootings are involved) or that "super crazy" always applies beyond "killed a bunch of people".

Looks like an attempt at making a magic wand gone nuclear.

I'm impressed he could hit anything with that. The Guerrilla gun can at least be aimed.

 

[omega 616]

What do you expect to happen, really? You can pick up bananas, a DVD, a t shirt and a gun in the same store.
You have a health care system designed to cripple just about anybody financially.
You prescribe drugs like you need them to breathe.
You put INSANE pressure from people high school and up! Passing tests, preparing for college, affording college, getting through college, paying off college debts for the rest of your life!

You have a serious recipe for disaster, so you get school shooting after school shooting and you all say "it's so sad, condolences to the family" and then forget about it, then it happens again, rinse and repeat ...

Anybody who doesn't want gun laws AND other laws enforced to prevent this crap, I hold equally responsible for letting this happen.

It's not just about full banning of guns, a lot of other social structures have to change to stop these. Apparently the majority of Americans want these school shooting to carry on, otherwise it would have changed after Sandy hook or even better Columbine!

 

[Leg End]

snip

You go from it being a societal issue to a legal issue, then back to society.

The majority of Americans just want to be left alone, hell, shooters often included.

 

[maninahat]

The debate will continue to rage on because of this horrible event.

But when people say how "easy" it is to get firearms in the US, I would swear those people are ridiculously underinformed of how much a person has to go through to legally own a firearm, let alone carry one in public (depending on the state things may even be harder). Now registered, lawful firearm owners are the least likely people to carry out violent crimes involving firearms. There are incidents of people being harmed with legally owned firearms, sometimes children. Those incidents are varied from accidental discharges to incompetence, and sometimes yes crimes are committed.

However the people most likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm, involving a discharge and injury or death are people who do not own them legally. How is more regulation of legally owned firearms going to stop criminals from being criminals?

And yeah you could just take everyone's right to firearms away, punish folks who have done and more than likely will never do a thing wrong/unlawful with those firearms. It won't stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns. Not in a country this size, with as many unsecured access points. It will only harm the folks who follow the laws as is.

Criminals often use illegally obtained guns, however these guns have to come from somewhere in the first place. Most often, they are either smuggled in from a country that lets civilians own them, or they are stolen from the homes of civilians who legally own them. To take Mexico as an example, despite banning gun ownership, guns are easily obtainable if you are a criminal because they can be run over the border from Texas, where they are bought legal (Over 80% of guns in Mexico come via this route). By banning civilian firearm access, you are also disrupting the streams of illegal guns going into the underworld - however this strategy can only work if you can't just simply go next door and get the guns from there. The less convenient it is to smuggle in black market weapons, the fewer criminals can access or afford them.

 

[omega 616]

snip

You go from it being a societal issue to a legal issue, then back to society.

The majority of Americans just want to be left alone, hell, shooters often included.

It's both, that's why.

America has this obsession with war, constantly wanting it, so much so that they bring it to their door step.
Laws don't help, allowing people to buy tools of war to "protect" yourself with an "assault" rifle.

Government needs to change how the country works, to be less capitalist ... stop trying to make a penny off everybody. People need to sort their lives out.

Like did you see the thing about the big mac?

Spoiler: in case you didn't

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2015/09/24/10/Big-mac_0.jpg[/url][/spoiler]

And to link that into my point, have you seen "supersize me" (mcdonalds gets a kicking in the media, huh?) at the start the guy was a perfectly healthy guy, pretty in shape. Then near the end he was depressed until he ate a big make and he dancing around in joy, his peep didn't work properly, he developed a pudgy gut ... the most important part is that "depressed" bit, MAYBE if people stopped with the shitty fast food, ate something healthy, did a little exercise and stopped popping pills, they wouldn't be so inclined to kill a bunch of people!

We can't just rely on the government to be our parents, giving us a list of do's and don'ts to follow.

Maybe it's just me.

 

[Leg End]

It's both, that's why.

America has this obsession with war, constantly wanting it, so much so that they bring it to their door step.

I have not met a person who has seriously been pro-war in the United States that was not absolutely fuck nuts, and those people are a very rare breed. I would imagine the UK is similar in that regard.

Laws don't help, allowing people to buy tools of war to "protect" yourself with an "assault" rifle.

You mean the second amendment which is a giant middle finger to the government stating The People will always have arms for protection against threats, foreign and domestic?
Actually, give me an example when an "assault" rifle has been used in a mass shooting. I'll wait.

Government needs to change how the country works, to be less capitalist ... stop trying to make a penny off everybody. People need to sort their lives out.

Well after the Cold War with the whole commie hysteria, saying the states needs to be less capitalist is just going to paint you as one of dem redds after our freedums. Capitalism as a base is fine but I do agree we worship money far too much.

Like did you see the thing about the big mac?

Spoiler: in case you didn't

Fixed that embed.

And to link that into my point, have you seen "supersize me" (mcdonalds gets a kicking in the media, huh?) at the start the guy was a perfectly healthy guy, pretty in shape. Then near the end he was depressed until he ate a big make and he dancing around in joy, his peep didn't work properly, he developed a pudgy gut ... the most important part is that "depressed" bit, MAYBE if people stopped with the shitty fast food, ate something healthy, did a little exercise and stopped popping pills, they wouldn't be so inclined to kill a bunch of people!

Actually, yes I have seen it. Two hours I won't really get back even if I did laugh at several bits. No one has been able to replicate his results from his McDonald's only diet.
If you want a better example, watch Idiocracy.

We can't just rely on the government to be our parents, giving us a list of do's and don'ts to follow.

You just described the core US ideology. The gubment needs to stay the hell out of the business of private citizens. Your argument is a bit muddled there bud. You're talking about how we need more restrictions but then you argue for personal responsibility. Maybe it's just me being up too early but you're not making much sense.

Maybe it's just me.

I dunno. But you made me hungry for a burger.

 

[Sarge034]

Lets just be real for a minute. Republicans took apart mental healthcare in the US after Reagan's attempted assassin was seen to have "gotten off" on an insanity plea. Now the money is in long-term pharmaceutical treatments for people with money. You think the companies that can't be bothered with antibiotics are going to care about people with no possible earning future to pay them back?

So now we shove the mentally ill in prisons, toss them onto the streets, or if you have money you can possibly get something like real care (though not necessarily). The solution isn't rocket science.

End the drug war, divert those trillions over decades to mental health.
Put price controls (like every other fucking country with half a brain) on healthcare matters.
Enforce gun laws on the books.
Stop trying to destroy the ATF, stop trying to empower crazies and militia movements with political wrangling.
Background checks for your guns. Any gun. No loopholes.
Penalties for criminal acts with firearms need to be greater, and need to be enforced.
Firearm manufacturers and sellers need to be liable like every other business on the planet.

The reason that none of that will happen isn't rocket science either, it's money, stasis, and stupid.

The problem is you're so biased in that direction you don't see the other side to those points.

>Drugs are illegal too, so we should just stop trying to enforce drug laws?
>Price controls do not work, take micro and macro economics if you don't believe me.
>What gun laws are not being enforced? I know that even the fucking stupid ones are from experience. >Title 18 USC § 922(r) My shotgun was manufactured in another country so I can't add a 2 round magazine extension on it. Were it built in the USA I could though, because it being made of foreign metal makes it more dangerous?
>Who's trying to destroy the ATF and what do you even mean by empowering crazies and militia movements?
>Problem is that the liberal government is trying to ban all guns (see ammo bans for the most recent attempt). You already get a check when you buy from a store but don't need one for a person to person sale. The reason I'm not 100% in favor of it is because what would the government, the ATF, need to do to make buying guns illegal? Just be too busy and not answer their phones. You may scoff, but the ATF has harassed folks (see FOPA 1986).
>I don't think they need to be greater (with the exception of mass shootings and other intentionally heinous acts, in which case I say death penalty is required) but I think they're not enforced because of the judicial system. That's not a gun issue, that's a politics issue because other serious crimes are getting slaps on the wrist too.
>Like we hold car manufacturers responsible when someone runs someone over?

OT- This is a crying shame, no doubt, but instead of trying to blame the gun why don't we blame the person behind the trigger and work proactively to keep people safe? My god damn grocery store has armed guards, why don't schools? That would seem to be an easy short term deterrent while we figure out the big issues at least.

Lastly, and most importantly, super respect for Chris Mintz. Chris Mintz is a fucking hero and to hell with anyone who thinks differently about Chris Mintz. Chris Mintz. And fuck whoever the what's his name shooter was, he's just a forgettable shit stain on society. I did the names on purpose, don't tell me because I don't want to see the shooter get his wish to be famous. Chris Mintz should be famous though, Chris Mintz.

 

[Thaluikhain]

My god damn grocery store has armed guards, why don't schools? That would seem to be an easy short term deterrent while we figure out the big issues at least.

Some of them do. Not all can afford them, of course, and lots of people don't trust them. I suspect that this might be in part due to lack of money as well, offer peanuts and you'll get monkeys with guns running round your kids.

(see ammo bans for the most recent attempt)

Ammo bans? I know that various kinds of ammo (armour piercing and so on) is banned in the US, but most isn't.

 

[omega 616]

snip

I'm not exactly in touch with social movements in the UK, nobody talks about war though.

Second amendment, the biggest political joke. It's how many years old, written in a time of muskets ... now we have drone VS civilian weapons. Like I said before "bring war to their own door step".

Well if I had used the gun instead of rifle, you could say columbine is an example with a tec9. Lets be honest though, how many times has "assault gun" been said. Sandy Hook had a Bushmaster (sounds pornographic!).

It's muddled for a reason, I think people need to be WAAY more responsible for their actions (ask me about my views on rape for an argument) but they never will be. People never want to take responsibility, it's never their fault! So the government has to make the world idiot proof and over see our entire lives.

 

[Sarge034]

Some of them do. Not all can afford them, of course, and lots of people don't trust them. I suspect that this might be in part due to lack of money as well, offer peanuts and you'll get monkeys with guns running round your kids.

True enough, I guess my point was that for all the finger pointing no one has even attempted to make it a law. We must protect schools just like any other high value target; be them government buildings, financial intuitions, or whatever. When you see a pattern the first thing should be to put deterrents in place to curtail that pattern, but instead of trying to proactively deter shootings a lot of people are using these tragedies only as ammunition to try and ban guns. To make a law that you can't have guns... It's not like there's a law you can't murder people, right? That'd totally solve the problem if there were a law that said you couldn't murder people.

Ammo bans? I know that various kinds of ammo (armour piercing and so on) is banned in the US, but most isn't.

There was an attempt to ban all 5.56mm (.223) ammo (commonly associated with AR-15 "M-4"/"assault weapons", but is also used in bolt action hunting rifles) that was doomed to fail because the Supreme court has already stated that ammo bans by proxy ban firearms and that's unconstitutional. The amended attempt focused on something called "green tip" 5.56mm (.223) ammo. "Green tip" ammunition has metal cores in them, in short they can pierce police patrol grade Kevlar (so can many non-core 5.56, but we don't talk about that because these bullets are EVIIIIIIILLLLLLLLL) and can be fired from handguns chambered for 5.56 and built to handle rifle powder charges. The issue is that they're not armor piercing but rather can pierce armor. It was motivated by the Sandy Hook shooting if I remember correctly, but the shooter never even used the AR-15 so a lot of people saw it as just an excuse to start banning stuff. After outrage and being publicly called out on their shenanigans the Obama administration dropped the whole thing... and blamed "us" when the next shooting happened... that utilized a handgun... that wasn't even chambered in 5.56. Stay classy Obama.

EDIT-

Sandy Hook had a Bushmaster (sounds pornographic!).

The AR-15 was not utilized in the shooting, nor even removed from the trunk of the car by the shooter. The media reported as much and then the story started changing until it aligned with the party line. I was listing the the news and over the course of 3 hours the report went from an AR-15 was found in the trunk to the AR-15 was used in the shooting. Your bias on this topic is obfuscating the truth of the matter.

 

[Leg End]

(see ammo bans for the most recent attempt)

Ammo bans? I know that various kinds of ammo (armour piercing and so on) is banned in the US, but most isn't.

Was a bunch of hubbub with M855 surplus a while back and the ATF backed off hard when people lost their shit when they tried to declare it illegal outright in a "error in publishing" if I remember correctly.

I'm not exactly in touch with social movements in the UK, nobody talks about war though.

I'm mildly in touch with some of the more less popular groups and it's about even with the US.

Second amendment, the biggest political joke. It's how many years old, written in a time of muskets ... now we have drone VS civilian weapons. Like I said before "bring war to their own door step".

Written in a time when the Queen was knocking on our door, when now that threat is our own government. Held true then, holds true today. Modern arms for modern times and all that. The amendment itself is actually quite specific about that.

If anyone is bringing drones into it, it is our own government, again proving why we need arms in the first place. Don't lump The People in with their government.

Well if I had used the gun instead of rifle, you could say columbine is an example with a tec9. Lets be honest though, how many times has "assault gun" been said.

Well, we can use the ever so popular term "assault weapon" that those ignorant of specifics love to use. What made the Tec 9 they used an "assault" anything?

It's muddled for a reason, I think people need to be WAAY more responsible for their actions (ask me about my views on rape for an argument) but they never will be. People never want to take responsibility, it's never their fault! So the government has to make the world idiot proof and over see our entire lives.

Yes. So why exactly should things be banned because people are not being held responsible for their own actions? Eric and Dylan shot up a school, stop taking away my things because they decided to kill people. I'm not killing people, neither are the majority of gun owners and those that do my a large margin are defending themselves from those who use illegal weapons illegally to harm others. I really don't get what your argument actually is.

 

[omega 616]

Some of them do. Not all can afford them, of course, and lots of people don't trust them. I suspect that this might be in part due to lack of money as well, offer peanuts and you'll get monkeys with guns running round your kids.

True enough, I guess my point was that for all the finger pointing no one has even attempted to make it a law. We must protect schools just like any other high value target; be them government buildings, financial intuitions, or whatever. When you see a pattern the first thing should be to put deterrents in place to curtail that pattern, but instead of trying to proactively deter shootings a lot of people are using these tragedies only as ammunition to try and ban guns. To make a law that you can't have guns... It's not like there's a law you can't murder people, right? That'd totally solve the problem if there were a law that said you couldn't murder people.

Ammo bans? I know that various kinds of ammo (armour piercing and so on) is banned in the US, but most isn't.

There was an attempt to ban all 5.56mm (.223) ammo (commonly associated with AR-15 "M-4"/"assault weapons", but is also used in bolt action hunting rifles) that was doomed to fail because the Supreme court has already stated that ammo bans by proxy ban firearms and that's unconstitutional. The amended attempt focused on something called "green tip" 5.56mm (.223) ammo. "Green tip" ammunition has metal cores in them, in short they can pierce police patrol grade Kevlar (so can many non-core 5.56, but we don't talk about that because these bullets are EVIIIIIIILLLLLLLLL) and can be fired from handguns chambered for 5.56 and built to handle rifle powder charges. The issue is that they're not armor piercing but rather can pierce armor. It was motivated by the Sandy Hook shooting if I remember correctly, but the shooter never even used the AR-15 so a lot of people saw it as just an excuse to start banning stuff. After outrage and being publicly called out on their shenanigans the Obama administration dropped the whole thing... and blamed "us" when the next shooting happened... that utilized a handgun... that wasn't even chambered in 5.56. Stay classy Obama.

EDIT-

Sandy Hook had a Bushmaster (sounds pornographic!).

The AR-15 was not utilized in the shooting, nor even removed from the trunk of the car by the shooter. The media reported as much and then the story started changing until it aligned with the party line. I was listing the the news and over the course of 3 hours the report went from an AR-15 was found in the trunk to the AR-15 was used in the shooting. Your bias on this topic is obfuscating the truth of the matter.

To be perfectly honest, I just googled if an assault weapon has ever been used in a shooting and it said sandy hook had a bushmaster.

Wasn't obfuscating anything, it's not like I was listening to American news, heard it was never removed from the trunk but thought I would lie to try and make a point, that wont actually mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Leg End]

To be perfectly honest, I just googled if an assault weapon has ever been used in a shooting and it said sandy hook had a bushmaster.

Wasn't obfuscating anything, it's not like I was listening to American news, heard it was never removed from the trunk but thought I would lie to try and make a point, that wont actually mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

I have to ask.
Do you think a Bushmaster AR-15 is an "assault weapon"? If so, why? What defines an "assault weapon"?
You googled for it but there is no actual definition to the term. It's a buzzword. Good for news headlines but not for information.

 

[omega 616]

To be perfectly honest, I just googled if an assault weapon has ever been used in a shooting and it said sandy hook had a bushmaster.

Wasn't obfuscating anything, it's not like I was listening to American news, heard it was never removed from the trunk but thought I would lie to try and make a point, that wont actually mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

I have to ask.
Do you think a Bushmaster AR-15 is an "assault weapon"? If so, why? What defines an "assault weapon"?
You googled for it but there is no actual definition to the term. It's a buzzword. Good for news headlines but not for information.

"Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud."

... I guess ...

(I hope you don't point out "The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions" 'cos I can read and I did notice it)

See, I couldn't offer my own definition 'cos I don't live in crazy land, where schools are shooting grounds. Get as pedantic as you like about terminology but in the end does anybody need anything other than a handgun? Maybe a hunting rifle if you needed a few more hugs as kid.

Do you NEED a shotgun to defend yourself? More than 10 bullets? If so you need to be less of a dick! If you need something of that magnitude to defend yourself, you need to be more nice. If somebody breaks into your home, they want your TV not to kill a random person.

 

[Leg End]

"Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud."

... I guess ...

(I hope you don't point out "The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions" 'cos I can read and I did notice it)

Then you'll also notice that there is, again, no set definition, not even in law. The set definition in public opinion just seems to be anything black/scary looking.

See, I couldn't offer my own definition 'cos I don't live in crazy land, where schools are shooting grounds. Get as pedantic as you like about terminology but in the end does anybody need anything other than a handgun? Maybe a hunting rifle if you needed a few more hugs as kid.

Well, in an effort to be more respectful, we indeed do NEED arms of varying kinds for defense and livelihood. Otherwise, I can just sum it up as it being our RIGHT to have arms. You don't NEED many things to sustain your existence outside of a sandwich, water and a tarp over your head, and the last one can be negotiable. The US values liberty above all else. Hell, if we're going to basics, I'd like to see you hunt game with a Glock.

Do you NEED a shotgun to defend yourself? More than 10 bullets? If so you need to be less of a dick! If you need something of that magnitude to defend yourself, you need to be more nice. If somebody breaks into your home, they want your TV not to kill a random person.

Why should I be limited in the ammunition capacity of my firearms? Why not have 10 rounds? Isn't the point to have an effective means to defend yourself? Why limit that ability?

See, believe it or not there are people out there who do not hold value to the lives of others, as you readily see in the reason this thread exists. Where he killed several kind individuals just because he could. Anyone can be a kind person and have enemies, that should not be a factor in their access to tools to defense. By your logic, good old Martin Luther King Jr. was a terrible person.

If someone is breaking into my home, that is a willful forced entry into my place of residence with clear means to force entery and hostile intent in those actions. I'll totally just bake them some fucking cookies and assume the best of someone who has already not given a flying fuck about my own rights and clearly does not have safe intentions for me, my property, or my family. Considering I do have experience with the threat of people breaking into my home in larger numbers to commit terrible acts to my family members and property, I'd say having more ammo ready to do combat would be needed in my case and my kindness has absolutely no bearing on how these people act. You're actually victim blaming right now and I despise that term.

 

[omega 616]

"Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud."

... I guess ...

(I hope you don't point out "The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions" 'cos I can read and I did notice it)

Then you'll also notice that there is, again, no set definition, not even in law. The set definition in public opinion just seems to be anything black/scary looking.

See, I couldn't offer my own definition 'cos I don't live in crazy land, where schools are shooting grounds. Get as pedantic as you like about terminology but in the end does anybody need anything other than a handgun? Maybe a hunting rifle if you needed a few more hugs as kid.

Well, in an effort to be more respectful, we indeed do NEED arms of varying kinds for defense and livelihood. Otherwise, I can just sum it up as it being our RIGHT to have arms. You don't NEED many things to sustain your existence outside of a sandwich, water and a tarp over your head, and the last one can be negotiable. The US values liberty above all else. Hell, if we're going to basics, I'd like to see you hunt game with a Glock.

Do you NEED a shotgun to defend yourself? More than 10 bullets? If so you need to be less of a dick! If you need something of that magnitude to defend yourself, you need to be more nice. If somebody breaks into your home, they want your TV not to kill a random person.

Why should I be limited in the ammunition capacity of my firearms? Why not have 10 rounds? Isn't the point to have an effective means to defend yourself? Why limit that ability?

See, believe it or not there are people out there who do not hold value to the lives of others, as you readily see in the reason this thread exists. Where he killed several kind individuals just because he could. Anyone can be a kind person and have enemies, that should not be a factor in their access to tools to defense. By your logic, good old Martin Luther King Jr. was a terrible person.

If someone is breaking into my home, that is a willful forced entry into my place of residence with clear means to force entery and hostile intent in those actions. I'll totally just bake them some fucking cookies and assume the best of someone who has already not given a flying fuck about my own rights and clearly does not have safe intentions for me, my property, or my family. Considering I do have experience with the threat of people breaking into my home in larger numbers to commit terrible acts to my family members and property, I'd say having more ammo ready to do combat would be needed in my case and my kindness has absolutely no bearing on how these people act. You're actually victim blaming right now and I despise that term.

See there is the problem, you had this experience you think you need a gun to defend yourself. Which I get, your personal space being violated and people taking personal items out of the place you think you're the safest but having Joe Public having access to guns is only a bad thing.

Just go watch Jim Jeffries talk about gun control, he talks about a time guys came through his window.

Just can't understand why people cling to guns.

 

[Leg End]

See there is the problem, you had this experience you think you need a gun to defend yourself. Which I get, your personal space being violated and people taking personal items out of the place you think you're the safest but having Joe Public having access to guns is only a bad thing.

Nice assumptions. No, I just particularly like having the means to protect myself, be it from someone breaking into my house, to my own government if things go sour.

Just go watch Jim Jeffries talk about gun control, he talks about a time guys came through his window.

I've seen the act. I found several parts funny while also wondering what planet he lives on.

Just can't understand why people cling to guns.

Take anything that people cling to, there will be people that won't understand it, and people that do.

Simply put again, we have guns, specifically mentioned in our constitution, for the means of protecting ourselves from our own government. This ensures a free people, a people that have the means to resist tyranny effectively.

Your statement that someone should be nicer if they don't want bad things to come to them is just offensive.