veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by Culp
http:///forum/post/2984477
at least they get college and health care at a reasonable price.
Pssssst! Its called Socialism
Yet another reason to ban assault weapons
- Thread starter jp30338
- Start date
Originally Posted by Culp
http:///forum/post/2984477
at least they get college and health care at a reasonable price.
Pssssst! Its called Socialism
U
usirchchris
Guest
Originally Posted by Culp
http:///forum/post/2984477
at least they get college and health care at a reasonable price.
you call that health care...is it really any less expensive?...socialist taxes are outrageous...even if it is less expensive I would rather pay a little more to assure I get to see the doc within the decade requested.
http:///forum/post/2984477
at least they get college and health care at a reasonable price.
socal57che
Active Member
Originally Posted by usirchchris
http:///forum/post/2984515
I would rather pay a little more to assure I get to see the doc within the decade requested.
Me too. This is a GINORMOUS problem in countries with gov't run medical programs.
http:///forum/post/2984515
I would rather pay a little more to assure I get to see the doc within the decade requested.
Me too. This is a GINORMOUS problem in countries with gov't run medical programs.
U
usirchchris
Guest
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2984536
If Europe's "Free" College is so great why do so many of them come here and pay for our "expensive" colleges?
Cause we have Natty Lite
http:///forum/post/2984536
If Europe's "Free" College is so great why do so many of them come here and pay for our "expensive" colleges?
Cause we have Natty Lite
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Culp
http:///forum/post/2984477
at least they get college and health care at a reasonable price.
See this is the thing it isn't free. They pay for it in form of taxes either directly or washed through higher living costs. You think those companies would be in business if they weren't charging more than it cost (cost includes taxes) to sell those products?
I know this concept is going to completely blow your mind...
But do you think it is cheaper for you to just pay for something, or for you to pay for something without knowing it, plus pay for the process of collecting the funds to pay for it...
http:///forum/post/2984477
at least they get college and health care at a reasonable price.
See this is the thing it isn't free. They pay for it in form of taxes either directly or washed through higher living costs. You think those companies would be in business if they weren't charging more than it cost (cost includes taxes) to sell those products?
I know this concept is going to completely blow your mind...
But do you think it is cheaper for you to just pay for something, or for you to pay for something without knowing it, plus pay for the process of collecting the funds to pay for it...
jp30338
Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2984184
Why should we care what Europe does? They let 13 year olds drink and drive on the wrong side of the road.
A great point
How is it "wrong" if that is their law? Besides the automobile was invented by a EUROPEAN country not america.
Please show me where 13yr. olds are allowed to drink.
http:///forum/post/2984184
Why should we care what Europe does? They let 13 year olds drink and drive on the wrong side of the road.
A great point
How is it "wrong" if that is their law? Besides the automobile was invented by a EUROPEAN country not america.
Please show me where 13yr. olds are allowed to drink.
jp30338
Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2984536
If Europe's "Free" College is so great why do so many of them come here and pay for our "expensive" colleges?
The same reason why our doctors, lawyers, researchers, etc go to Europe to study abroad.
http:///forum/post/2984536
If Europe's "Free" College is so great why do so many of them come here and pay for our "expensive" colleges?
The same reason why our doctors, lawyers, researchers, etc go to Europe to study abroad.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2983851
Seen what just happened in Germany? Stricter gun laws seem to really have worked there...
The kid in Germany took his father's 9mm from under his bed. His father has an extensive gun collection, all which was locked up EXCEPT the Baretta 9mm. This same scenario can happen to 99.99% of all gun owners. The only exception would be those gun owners who put trigger locks on their guns and keep the keys in their pocket. But of course what reasonable gun owner would do that? How could you use that gun for home protection if you had to go look for a key to use it?
http:///forum/post/2983851
Seen what just happened in Germany? Stricter gun laws seem to really have worked there...
The kid in Germany took his father's 9mm from under his bed. His father has an extensive gun collection, all which was locked up EXCEPT the Baretta 9mm. This same scenario can happen to 99.99% of all gun owners. The only exception would be those gun owners who put trigger locks on their guns and keep the keys in their pocket. But of course what reasonable gun owner would do that? How could you use that gun for home protection if you had to go look for a key to use it?
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2984128
Just to reinforce my American arrogance.
They only like us when they need something.
I Dont Give A Rats Ass About Europe!
I'm sure the Europeans would say the same thing about Illinois.
http:///forum/post/2984128
Just to reinforce my American arrogance.
They only like us when they need something.
I Dont Give A Rats Ass About Europe!
I'm sure the Europeans would say the same thing about Illinois.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2984674
The kid in Germany took his father's 9mm from under his bed. His father has an extensive gun collection, all which was locked up EXCEPT the Baretta 9mm. This same scenario can happen to 99.99% of all gun owners. The only exception would be those gun owners who put trigger locks on their guns and keep the keys in their pocket. But of course what reasonable gun owner would do that? How could you use that gun for home protection if you had to go look for a key to use it?
So the kid stole a gun, and used it... He didn't legally obtain the gun. Way to go gun control laws!
http:///forum/post/2984674
The kid in Germany took his father's 9mm from under his bed. His father has an extensive gun collection, all which was locked up EXCEPT the Baretta 9mm. This same scenario can happen to 99.99% of all gun owners. The only exception would be those gun owners who put trigger locks on their guns and keep the keys in their pocket. But of course what reasonable gun owner would do that? How could you use that gun for home protection if you had to go look for a key to use it?
So the kid stole a gun, and used it... He didn't legally obtain the gun. Way to go gun control laws!
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2983692
He may not have been right in the head obviously, but if there was an assualt weapon ban in place, he may not have been able to acquire that automatic weapon he used to kill everyone.
It was NOT automatic.
The local yokel could not even say if the weapons were AR or AK types. It aint hard to tell the difference.
Too bad a armed citizen was not there to take him down sooner.
He burned down the house, you must ban lighters and matches. No more lighter fluid, some idiot could use it to start a fire.
Smoking in bed kills hundreds every year, ban smoking and matresses.
Where do we stop?
http:///forum/post/2983692
He may not have been right in the head obviously, but if there was an assualt weapon ban in place, he may not have been able to acquire that automatic weapon he used to kill everyone.
It was NOT automatic.
The local yokel could not even say if the weapons were AR or AK types. It aint hard to tell the difference.
Too bad a armed citizen was not there to take him down sooner.
He burned down the house, you must ban lighters and matches. No more lighter fluid, some idiot could use it to start a fire.
Smoking in bed kills hundreds every year, ban smoking and matresses.
Where do we stop?
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2984688
So the kid stole a gun, and used it... He didn't legally obtain the gun. Way to go gun control laws!
Didn't legally obtain the gun? Yea, technically you're right. However, the original purchase was legal. Kind of a gray area when your child steals your gun and uses it in a crime. Pretty much what happens with all these kids who went on a shooting rampage (i.e Columbine).
Unless you ban ownership of all types of weapons, no gun control laws, however restrictive, would ever keep a scenario like this from happening. And we know that would NEVER happen...
http:///forum/post/2984688
So the kid stole a gun, and used it... He didn't legally obtain the gun. Way to go gun control laws!
Didn't legally obtain the gun? Yea, technically you're right. However, the original purchase was legal. Kind of a gray area when your child steals your gun and uses it in a crime. Pretty much what happens with all these kids who went on a shooting rampage (i.e Columbine).
Unless you ban ownership of all types of weapons, no gun control laws, however restrictive, would ever keep a scenario like this from happening. And we know that would NEVER happen...
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2984697
It was NOT automatic.
The local yokel could not even say if the weapons were AR or AK types. It aint hard to tell the difference.
Too bad a armed citizen was not there to take him down sooner.
He burned down the house, you must ban lighters and matches. No more lighter fluid, some idiot could use it to start a fire.
Smoking in bed kills hundreds every year, ban smoking and matresses.
Where do we stop?
You can't use the lighter, rock, stick analogies with these random gun attacks. They're not the same. You're taking the measure to an extreme. If you look at it that way, then you could virtually ban every single object on this planet. Pick something, anything. That 'anything' could be used as a deadly weapon. But a stick can't accurately be thrown an lethally kill someone at 50 yards. A lighter can't create a large enough flame that can be thrown at someone 10 to 15 times like a semi-auto weapon can. Throw a large rock at someone and kill them? Sure. But can you throw that same rock 10 to 15 times in less than 10 seconds accurately like a pistol or rifle like an AR-15 or AK-47? See where I'm going with this?
I also like all the talk about how if an 'armed citizen' were present, tragedies like these could be avoided. People who own guns, specifically concealed weapons, have to get special training and go through classes in order to carry those guns in public. But how many of those people would know how to use that weapon in a scenario like one of these last gun attacks? Have you ever shot and killed someone? If someone was randomly shooting people, and you pulled your weapon out, could you pull the trigger? Could you accurately shoot your weapon and hit the person without hitting an innocent bystander? I'm sure most of you will say, "Of course. I'd have no problems blowing the jerk away." But unfortunately, when situations like this occur, rarely does a 'legally armed citizen' bring down the assailant. Most of the times, they get themselves killed because they either can't aim their weapon properly, or hesitate to pull the trigger. All they do is become the next target.
http:///forum/post/2984697
It was NOT automatic.
The local yokel could not even say if the weapons were AR or AK types. It aint hard to tell the difference.
Too bad a armed citizen was not there to take him down sooner.
He burned down the house, you must ban lighters and matches. No more lighter fluid, some idiot could use it to start a fire.
Smoking in bed kills hundreds every year, ban smoking and matresses.
Where do we stop?
You can't use the lighter, rock, stick analogies with these random gun attacks. They're not the same. You're taking the measure to an extreme. If you look at it that way, then you could virtually ban every single object on this planet. Pick something, anything. That 'anything' could be used as a deadly weapon. But a stick can't accurately be thrown an lethally kill someone at 50 yards. A lighter can't create a large enough flame that can be thrown at someone 10 to 15 times like a semi-auto weapon can. Throw a large rock at someone and kill them? Sure. But can you throw that same rock 10 to 15 times in less than 10 seconds accurately like a pistol or rifle like an AR-15 or AK-47? See where I'm going with this?
I also like all the talk about how if an 'armed citizen' were present, tragedies like these could be avoided. People who own guns, specifically concealed weapons, have to get special training and go through classes in order to carry those guns in public. But how many of those people would know how to use that weapon in a scenario like one of these last gun attacks? Have you ever shot and killed someone? If someone was randomly shooting people, and you pulled your weapon out, could you pull the trigger? Could you accurately shoot your weapon and hit the person without hitting an innocent bystander? I'm sure most of you will say, "Of course. I'd have no problems blowing the jerk away." But unfortunately, when situations like this occur, rarely does a 'legally armed citizen' bring down the assailant. Most of the times, they get themselves killed because they either can't aim their weapon properly, or hesitate to pull the trigger. All they do is become the next target.
U
usirchchris
Guest
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2984776
I also like all the talk about how if an 'armed citizen' were present, tragedies like these could be avoided. People who own guns, specifically concealed weapons, have to get special training and go through classes in order to carry those guns in public. But how many of those people would know how to use that weapon in a scenario like one of these last gun attacks? Have you ever shot and killed someone? If someone was randomly shooting people, and you pulled your weapon out, could you pull the trigger? Could you accurately shoot your weapon and hit the person without hitting an innocent bystander? I'm sure most of you will say, "Of course. I'd have no problems blowing the jerk away." But unfortunately, when situations like this occur, rarely does a 'legally armed citizen' bring down the assailant. Most of the times, they get themselves killed because they either can't aim their weapon properly, or hesitate to pull the trigger. All they do is become the next target.
I think you are right here. I have no idea if I would have the strength to pull the trigger and kill someone if the opportunity came about in a tragic situation. I would like to think that I could...with the rush of nerves I don't know if I could hit a building in that scenario, let alone a person...even if I was able to pull the trigger. I do, however, like the thought that I would have a fighting chance despite all the given factors rather than out right being denied that chance because I was following a law that the criminal was not.
http:///forum/post/2984776
I also like all the talk about how if an 'armed citizen' were present, tragedies like these could be avoided. People who own guns, specifically concealed weapons, have to get special training and go through classes in order to carry those guns in public. But how many of those people would know how to use that weapon in a scenario like one of these last gun attacks? Have you ever shot and killed someone? If someone was randomly shooting people, and you pulled your weapon out, could you pull the trigger? Could you accurately shoot your weapon and hit the person without hitting an innocent bystander? I'm sure most of you will say, "Of course. I'd have no problems blowing the jerk away." But unfortunately, when situations like this occur, rarely does a 'legally armed citizen' bring down the assailant. Most of the times, they get themselves killed because they either can't aim their weapon properly, or hesitate to pull the trigger. All they do is become the next target.
I think you are right here. I have no idea if I would have the strength to pull the trigger and kill someone if the opportunity came about in a tragic situation. I would like to think that I could...with the rush of nerves I don't know if I could hit a building in that scenario, let alone a person...even if I was able to pull the trigger. I do, however, like the thought that I would have a fighting chance despite all the given factors rather than out right being denied that chance because I was following a law that the criminal was not.
reefraff
Active Member
I think having the option to have a gun on you in this situation is a good thing. I also think the fact that those with a concealed carry permit have to have additional training is a good thing as well.
How many otherwise law abiding people are carrying now without the additional training that allowing concealed permits would allow.
How many otherwise law abiding people are carrying now without the additional training that allowing concealed permits would allow.
jp30338
Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2984697
It was NOT automatic.
The local yokel could not even say if the weapons were AR or AK types. It aint hard to tell the difference.
Too bad a armed citizen was not there to take him down sooner.
He burned down the house, you must ban lighters and matches. No more lighter fluid, some idiot could use it to start a fire.
Smoking in bed kills hundreds every year, ban smoking and matresses.
Where do we stop?
The automatic gun was used in the Alabama killings the other day. The police said over 200 rounds were fired! In Germany, the kid used a handgun.
If an armed citizen were to shoot the suspect, that citizen would end up in jail for murder, unless the suspect attempted to shoot that citizen. Imagine if every armed citizen drew their guns out everytime this happens, how would the AUTHORITIES know who the bad guy/girl is? Talk about a mess!
http:///forum/post/2984697
It was NOT automatic.
The local yokel could not even say if the weapons were AR or AK types. It aint hard to tell the difference.
Too bad a armed citizen was not there to take him down sooner.
He burned down the house, you must ban lighters and matches. No more lighter fluid, some idiot could use it to start a fire.
Smoking in bed kills hundreds every year, ban smoking and matresses.
Where do we stop?
The automatic gun was used in the Alabama killings the other day. The police said over 200 rounds were fired! In Germany, the kid used a handgun.
If an armed citizen were to shoot the suspect, that citizen would end up in jail for murder, unless the suspect attempted to shoot that citizen. Imagine if every armed citizen drew their guns out everytime this happens, how would the AUTHORITIES know who the bad guy/girl is? Talk about a mess!
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2984875
The automatic gun was used in the Alabama killings the other day. The police said over 200 rounds were fired! In Germany, the kid used a handgun.
If an armed citizen were to shoot the suspect, that citizen would end up in jail for murder, unless the suspect attempted to shoot that citizen. Imagine if every armed citizen drew their guns out everytime this happens, how would the AUTHORITIES know who the bad guy/girl is? Talk about a mess!
Where do you nutcase liberals come up with these crackpot what if scenarios? Seriously?
They are the same ones, over and over. They don't make sense. They ignore any inconvenient fact. It is just nauseating sometimes how senseless most liberal argument really are.
If I'd been in Bama with a CHL and had taken out the guy with the illegal weapon. I wouldn't have gone to jail.
If ever person in Bama carried a weapon, that guy would have had about 5 seconds to get some rounds off, then everyone in that room would have blown his head off. The situation would have ended. Right there and then. He wouldn't have been able to leave and go to another location and shoot some more. It is just common sense.
When the cops finally showed up, people's gun would have been back in their holster and their would have been any issue...
http:///forum/post/2984875
The automatic gun was used in the Alabama killings the other day. The police said over 200 rounds were fired! In Germany, the kid used a handgun.
If an armed citizen were to shoot the suspect, that citizen would end up in jail for murder, unless the suspect attempted to shoot that citizen. Imagine if every armed citizen drew their guns out everytime this happens, how would the AUTHORITIES know who the bad guy/girl is? Talk about a mess!
Where do you nutcase liberals come up with these crackpot what if scenarios? Seriously?
They are the same ones, over and over. They don't make sense. They ignore any inconvenient fact. It is just nauseating sometimes how senseless most liberal argument really are.
If I'd been in Bama with a CHL and had taken out the guy with the illegal weapon. I wouldn't have gone to jail.
If ever person in Bama carried a weapon, that guy would have had about 5 seconds to get some rounds off, then everyone in that room would have blown his head off. The situation would have ended. Right there and then. He wouldn't have been able to leave and go to another location and shoot some more. It is just common sense.
When the cops finally showed up, people's gun would have been back in their holster and their would have been any issue...
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2984892
Where do you nutcase liberals come up with these crackpot what if scenarios? Seriously?
They are the same ones, over and over. They don't make sense. They ignore any inconvenient fact. It is just nauseating sometimes how senseless most liberal argument really are.
If I'd been in Bama with a CHL and had taken out the guy with the illegal weapon. I wouldn't have gone to jail.
If ever person in Bama carried a weapon, that guy would have had about 5 seconds to get some rounds off, then everyone in that room would have blown his head off. The situation would have ended. Right there and then. He wouldn't have been able to leave and go to another location and shoot some more. It is just common sense.
When the cops finally showed up, people's gun would have been back in their holster and their would have been any issue...
Why do you always have this liberal/conservative argument? Why is everything you don't agree with a 'liberal issue' or a 'liberal problem'? Seems like in this scenario, you're making a lot of assumptions. Do you actually know Alabama law regarding shooting someone? You live in Houston, you yourself said in some other gun debate you couldn't just 'blow someone away' without just cause. Your logic makes no sense. Take about nauseating.
Let's look at this Alabama incident. You make this big talk that if you'd been there, the guy would've been dead in 5 seconds by you 'blowing his head off'. So a hoard of policemen hit the scene and hear massive gun fire. They see this nut job whose already capped 5 or 6 people, aiming his gun at another victim. You are standing there with your weapon drawn, ready to take the situtation into your own hands. How are the police supposed to know who the nut job is? You got some big sign on you that says 'Law Abiding Concealed Weapon Holder. I'm The Good Guy."? You could be one of the shooters as far as they know. Why do you think you have the legal right to shoot someone if they are not threatening your life directly? If this guy had his back to you shooting at someone else, and you shot him dead in the back, you think you have the right to do this? And it's hilarious that you think that you could shoot this guy, put your gun back in your holster, then stand there and say "I dunno" when the cops asked what happened. Think maybe they'd do some ballistic reports to see what bullet killed the guy? You got proof you shot the guy in self defense? Sorry, but I've seen this scenario come up before on the news, and the 'good guy' got prosecuted for murder. He didn't get some heroes medal or pat on the back. What you call liberal minded, I call common sense.
http:///forum/post/2984892
Where do you nutcase liberals come up with these crackpot what if scenarios? Seriously?
They are the same ones, over and over. They don't make sense. They ignore any inconvenient fact. It is just nauseating sometimes how senseless most liberal argument really are.
If I'd been in Bama with a CHL and had taken out the guy with the illegal weapon. I wouldn't have gone to jail.
If ever person in Bama carried a weapon, that guy would have had about 5 seconds to get some rounds off, then everyone in that room would have blown his head off. The situation would have ended. Right there and then. He wouldn't have been able to leave and go to another location and shoot some more. It is just common sense.
When the cops finally showed up, people's gun would have been back in their holster and their would have been any issue...
Why do you always have this liberal/conservative argument? Why is everything you don't agree with a 'liberal issue' or a 'liberal problem'? Seems like in this scenario, you're making a lot of assumptions. Do you actually know Alabama law regarding shooting someone? You live in Houston, you yourself said in some other gun debate you couldn't just 'blow someone away' without just cause. Your logic makes no sense. Take about nauseating.
Let's look at this Alabama incident. You make this big talk that if you'd been there, the guy would've been dead in 5 seconds by you 'blowing his head off'. So a hoard of policemen hit the scene and hear massive gun fire. They see this nut job whose already capped 5 or 6 people, aiming his gun at another victim. You are standing there with your weapon drawn, ready to take the situtation into your own hands. How are the police supposed to know who the nut job is? You got some big sign on you that says 'Law Abiding Concealed Weapon Holder. I'm The Good Guy."? You could be one of the shooters as far as they know. Why do you think you have the legal right to shoot someone if they are not threatening your life directly? If this guy had his back to you shooting at someone else, and you shot him dead in the back, you think you have the right to do this? And it's hilarious that you think that you could shoot this guy, put your gun back in your holster, then stand there and say "I dunno" when the cops asked what happened. Think maybe they'd do some ballistic reports to see what bullet killed the guy? You got proof you shot the guy in self defense? Sorry, but I've seen this scenario come up before on the news, and the 'good guy' got prosecuted for murder. He didn't get some heroes medal or pat on the back. What you call liberal minded, I call common sense.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2984936
Let's look at this Alabama incident. You make this big talk that if you'd been there, the guy would've been dead in 5 seconds by you 'blowing his head off'. So a hoard of policemen hit the scene and hear massive gun fire. They see this nut job whose already capped 5 or 6 people, aiming his gun at another victim. You are standing there with your weapon drawn, ready to take the situtation into your own hands. How are the police supposed to know who the nut job is? You got some big sign on you that says 'Law Abiding Concealed Weapon Holder. I'm The Good Guy."? You could be one of the shooters as far as they know. Why do you think you have the legal right to shoot someone if they are not threatening your life directly? If this guy had his back to you shooting at someone else, and you shot him dead in the back, you think you have the right to do this? And it's hilarious that you think that you could shoot this guy, put your gun back in your holster, then stand there and say "I dunno" when the cops asked what happened. Think maybe they'd do some ballistic reports to see what bullet killed the guy? You got proof you shot the guy in self defense? Sorry, but I've seen this scenario come up before on the news, and the 'good guy' got prosecuted for murder. He didn't get some heroes medal or pat on the back. What you call liberal minded, I call common sense.
I guess all police officers are dumb
While we are making up what if senarios.
What if we have aborted the person who was going to cure aids, or discover how to make nerves regenerate? We should stop aborting babies too. IT is the same logic.
Find me a situation where that happened. And I'll find you 10 times where the police were able to properly identify who was the "good guy." You watch too much tv.