Off Topic ForumThis is the place for mature discussions not necessarily related to cars. This is however also moderated and only registered members are allowed to post. No religion and no vicious attacks.
__________________
2002 Chiaretto Red purchased with 58k 01/2011
05/10/13@ 102,400 miles
Mods:
Valentine 1 hardwire
Muffler delete
Evolve AlphaN
Predator Ice V5 Halo bulbs
E60 SSK
ILLUMINATED ZHP shift knob
Slimm's CF finned diffuser
Slimm's Euro tilt/slide armrest
Slimm's Alcantara shift boot
Slimm's Alcantara full e-brake
Black Cubic trim
BC Racing BR coilovers
Evolve 4-1 Medusa Headers, cats, X pipe
Evolve Cold air intakes
__________________________________________
My car/vehicle history:
1993 BMW 525i (sold)
1997 CBR1100XX Super Blackbird (sold)
1994 Firebird Formula V8(Total of 3 days )
2002 Jaguar X-type 3.0 Sport manual (sold)
1992 300ZX Twin Turbo (sold)
2002 BMW 530i Sport (sold)
2007 CBR1000RR (RIP)
1988 BMW 325i convertible (sold)
2002 BMW M5 (Current driver)
2002 Chevy Camaro Z28 35th anniversary(sold)
1991 300ZX Twin Turbo super white 130k Miles! (For sale soon! Contact me for details)
Going to the range is a fun hobby and you should have the right to do that and keep what would be considered small arms. I'm just wondering aloud why the hell anyone would need an assault rifle with extended magazines (don't know if that is the right technical term)?
Not attacking anyone-just have the feeling that assault weapons and small arms are sort of lumped into an all or nothing approach as a part of our rights. AFter this past weekend, suspect that this will be debated.
Interested to learn more if you have any opinions.
Going to the range is a fun hobby and you should have the right to do that and keep what would be considered small arms. I'm just wondering aloud why the hell anyone would need an assault rifle with extended magazines (don't know if that is the right technical term)?
Not attacking anyone-just have the feeling that assault weapons and small arms are sort of lumped into an all or nothing approach as a part of our rights. AFter this past weekend, suspect that this will be debated.
Interested to learn more if you have any opinions.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill,
Assault weapons is just a term that anti gun people use. A assault weapon can be anything, Things that you find in a kitchen can be called a assault weapon. I own many rifle's with many setups, Some for home defense,some for hunting, some for target shooting, some for long range target shooting, some for tactical tournaments shooting. Magazines are used for a quick follow up shot, If your in a tournament lets say time is key, Now thats not to say they don't kill because they can but its( who's pulling the trigger) that is the big problem. (Guns don't kill people people do) ! And not everyone out there that owns a AR-15 or what i call it (sporting rifle) is a killer or going too kill. You can remove every gun off the face of the planet and that wont stop bad guys from killing someone. This last weekend was very very sad it made me mad, when i found out he had a AR-15 i was praying that he got it illegally because i know that there are( anti gun people that love when a bad thing like this go's down) just so they can go on TV and call for new gun law's. And thats a fact, No new gun laws will stop a bad guy thats why they are called bad guys, but you know what could have stopped him a good guy with a gun. Bad guys always go where there is a gun free zone. A concealed carry permeant holder could have stopped him, not saying no one would have died but less people who'd have gotten hurt. One guy a(ccp)had his hand gun in his car at the time but the media didn't say that right ? I wonder why ?
Thanks for the response and I see your points; however, i must also say that the original rights-"freedom to bear arms" evolved out of the need for farmers to maintain protection against attacks from marauding Indians, and then the British occupation of Boston where even some assemblies were considered unlawful.
The British were typically armed with the "brown bess" musket if I recall correctly, which could be primed and reloaded by a real expert in a little less than a minute's time.
The guns that were used in the Colorado tragedy had an incredible fire rate, with expanded capability magazine's which as noted, added to the slaughter. I don't think we really need those things to be free, and I certainly do not think we should have to be packing heat when attending the movies-ya know what I'm saying?
You are right, they'll always be nuts and crazy people-let's just not make it easier than necessary for them to spray a room full of people and cause such utter devastation. We have to protect other's rights as well as our personal preferences.
( anti gun people that love when a bad thing like this go's down) just so they can go on TV and call for new gun law's.
Yes, they parade around the streets because they love it when fellow human beings get shot while watching a movie. Nothing gets them more excited.
Quote:
but you know what could have stopped him a good guy with a gun. Bad guys always go where there is a gun free zone. A concealed carry permeant holder could have stopped him, not saying no one would have died but less people who'd have gotten hurt.
I think that there were a few factors that you didn't take into account. The guy walked into a movie theater while a movie was playing. He threw a smoke grenade and started shooting. Movie theaters are dark and it's hard to see. Unless you were in the 2nd row, it would be irresponsible to draw your weapon and start shooting. People in adjacent rooms got hit, so your fire could easily go through a wall and hit someone else in another room. The guy had a flak jacket and I'm pretty sure that concealed permits don't allow for armor-piercing rounds. In addition, what are you gonna shoot at? What if there were 3 other guys carrying weapons and they started to open fire. How would you know who the bad guy is? What if there were 2 (bad guy) shooters at different spots of the theater? How do you identify them? How do you fire when people are panicking and, quite likely, crossing your line of fire? Are you good at shooting moving targets? You can't just say that a good guy would've taken him out. It's not as easy as taking aim and squeezing the trigger. The point of having a gun is being responsible with it and knowing how and when to use it.
I'm all for the 2nd amendment even though I can hardly relate to your typical gun-toting citizen (I own weapons but I'm not foaming at the mouth and I certainly believe that education when it comes to gun use is desperately needed), but the argument that a "good guy" could've taken that guy out is overly simplistic and unrealistic.
The new rules of the forum prevent us to discuss politics and I'm not sure if this thread fits that, but I want to participate while I have the chance.
Why would anyone need to own a car that goes 200 mph?? The legal limit is 65 to 70 in most states. Would it be better if all cars were governed to 85 mph?
In terms of the high capacity rifle the guy used, I would be curious which caused more casualities/fatalities: that rifle, or the "normal capacity" shotgun loaded with whatever type of round he used. From what I know, he didn't aim the rifle - he shot it quickly, in the dark, at marauding folks - which is not a recipe for well aimed shots. Conversely, a 6 or 8 round shotgun with a well chosen round would absolutely devastate a theater crowd.
My point being: The argument over the capacity of the rifle being appropriate for citizenry because of this particular instance is a false one - the capacity of the rifle could easily have done far less damage than the capacity of a very appropriate hunting shotgun. But some will discuss banning the rifle's magazine size and ignore the shotgun.
...
The other thought I'd offer is that, as Diny pointed out, another person with a concealed carry weapon (typically a smallish pistol), might have actually created more problems. If the guy was truly wearing a flack jacket, that could've been problematic as well.
The best bet for safety and lessening the horror would've been for several citizens to rush him. He was using rifles/shotguns, which are absolutely awful in close combat. They are easy to disarm, easy to leverage against, etc.
Guns are just another tool. They have strengths and weaknesses. And they aren't the only tool with such capacity for violence by far - they are simply the most focused on.
If the theatre killer didn't have guns, perhaps he would've built home-made pipe bombs and caused even more damage. Perhaps if our citizenry were trained as Israeli's are, the casualty count would've been 8-10 before he was taken down. There's all sorts of "maybe"s.
...
I'm a gun owner but not a member of the NRA. As much as I support the NRA's core mission, I think they tend to go a bit too far. I don't see anything wrong with requiring extensive, national background checks (which should be required to be completed within 7 days or else it is an automatic pass). I dont' see anything wrong with restricting access to certain arms. And, frankly, I think part of acquiring guns should be a one-time 2-3 day training course that all citizens should be required to go through once in their life.
These are reasonable standards IMHO, but the NRA would push against them. Until they themselves are willing to put forth a middle ground while firmly holding to the right to bear arms, I'll resist joining them as a member.
Why would anyone need to own a car that goes 200 mph?? The legal limit is 65 to 70 in most states. Would it be better if all cars were governed to 85 mph?
Exactly, but even moreso, why should we be allowed to own cars above 2000 pounds? Isn't a 4000 pound car capable of 80mph a terrible weapon? What about 6,000-7,000 pound trucks?
Why on earth am I allowed to rent a 24' u-haul truck with a standard driver's license?
37Likes
)
Linear Mode
