If there is a point you're wishing to make please explain it because I don't see it.Vahir said:I know this is a quote going pretty far back, but I'd like to reiterate Breakfastman's "What the fuck". This is insane.
If there is a point you're wishing to make please explain it because I don't see it.Vahir said:I know this is a quote going pretty far back, but I'd like to reiterate Breakfastman's "What the fuck". This is insane.
and those that are kept in the open around other people run the risk of being stolen or destroyed, even those guarded by guns and guards, banks and armored cars get robbed, and the armed guards are usually the first ones shot. Valuables get stolen or destroyed all the time.LegendaryGamer0 said:Valuables come in all shapes and sizes.Lense-Thirring said:Now, tell me how that is in any way similar to humans.
Looked at the laws, and you're right. Campus carry was legal in this case, with someone on the other side of campus holding a classroom during this shooting. If nothing else, I admit when I am wrong. I however maintain that campus carry is overall a positive for colleges because it barely costs the school anything and there is simply little reason to not allow it.Revnak said:I went to the school. I'm aware that the security guards did not carry guns. I am aware that most people don't carry them there. That's mostly because most people don't carry in the area, I've never seen someone with a gun here outside of when they are going on a hunting trip or something like that and I've lived here for fifteen years. Legally, he could have owned a gun and brought it to the campus, provided he had a permit.LegendaryGamer0 said:Take this with a grain of salt as I heard it in the insane aftermath but apparently, a professor stated that guns are verboten on campus and not even the campus rent-a-cops have guns.Revnak said:He could have had one. Oregon has concealed carry and colleges are not allowed to be gun free zones.
Fun fact, I agree. My desires in terms of gun control have nothing to do with banning concealed carry. I just want registration, licensing, and mandatory background checks on all sales and exchanges. In my mind, using a gun in any circumstances is a public act like driving a car on a road, and is something that ought to be restricted similarly.Shock and Awe said:Looked at the laws, and you're right. Campus carry was legal in this case, with someone on the other side of campus holding a classroom during this shooting. If nothing else, I admit when I am wrong. I however maintain that campus carry is overall a positive for colleges because it barely costs the school anything and there is simply little reason to not allow it.Revnak said:I went to the school. I'm aware that the security guards did not carry guns. I am aware that most people don't carry them there. That's mostly because most people don't carry in the area, I've never seen someone with a gun here outside of when they are going on a hunting trip or something like that and I've lived here for fifteen years. Legally, he could have owned a gun and brought it to the campus, provided he had a permit.LegendaryGamer0 said:Take this with a grain of salt as I heard it in the insane aftermath but apparently, a professor stated that guns are verboten on campus and not even the campus rent-a-cops have guns.Revnak said:He could have had one. Oregon has concealed carry and colleges are not allowed to be gun free zones.
3.7 million robberies a year is not rare. 250,000 people are injured/killed during home break ins a year.CandideWolf said:No guns means no gun crimes. That will never happen, but striving for that ideal is how things will get better
And if someone thinks they need a gun to protect themselves from an extremely rare break in (a robbery), you should not own a gun because that is some high class paranoia.
Not this again....I am surprised how effective that piece of NRA propaganda still is.LegendaryGamer0 said:Do you think a Bushmaster AR-15 is an "assault weapon"?
Sorry but think this is false.TechNoFear said:Firearm manufacturers created the terms 'assault weapon', 'assault rifle' and 'assault pistol' in the 1970s - 1980s.
An AR-15 is an 'assault rifle' if we use the strict legal definition in either the AWB or AWCA.Ihateregistering1 said:A standard civilian purchased AR-15 does not have select-fire, as it only has a semi-auto mode, thus it is not, by strict definition, an "assault rifle".
Mostly yes, but there are outliers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shootingCaramel Frappe said:I noticed that a lot of these gunmen / culprits behind the shootings are between 18-30. You never see 40 year old, 50 year olds and so on go around shooting schools up or public places.
So do other countries and they don't have a run on child coffins every month. Our society is deadlySarge034 said:
Actually I absolutely love that someone brings this up because this was the case when we initially fought for independence. It wasn't everyone siding against the crown and many people actively sided with the brits and many others just didn't give a fuck really.FirstNameLastName said:snip of post mentioning militias siding with the government
Basically, what you just said.Illesdan said:snip
That would be an example of a badly written law, written by people who know nothing about firearms.TechNoFear said:An AR-15 is an 'assault rifle' if we use the strict legal definition in either the AWB or AWCA.Ihateregistering1 said:A standard civilian purchased AR-15 does not have select-fire, as it only has a semi-auto mode, thus it is not, by strict definition, an "assault rifle".
Like it or not, because of 'incorrect' use in both politics and the media the term 'assault' now legally and colloquially includes military pattern semi-automatic firearms (as well as firearms capable of selective fire).
Using the strict legal definition of of the Assault Weapons Ban, then a civilian purchased AR-15 is NOT an 'assault rifle'. In fact, on the very link you provided, the legal definition doesn't even mention "assault rifle".TechNoFear said:An AR-15 is an 'assault rifle' if we use the strict legal definition in either the AWB or AWCA.Ihateregistering1 said:A standard civilian purchased AR-15 does not have select-fire, as it only has a semi-auto mode, thus it is not, by strict definition, an "assault rifle".
Like it or not, because of 'incorrect' use in both politics and the media the term 'assault' now legally and colloquially includes military pattern semi-automatic firearms (as well as firearms capable of selective fire).