Silkroad Online Forums

I love how you act as if any time there's a gun man shooting up people, say at a mall or theatre, that if there were people near by with guns on them, they'd first shoot at the murderer, then each other, turning the scene into an old western bar shoot out, which is an absurd statement to make.

Oh, and at the bold part, the current law we're talking about (2'nd amendment) has been around for decades. So this whole line is invalid.

^ I couldn't agree more.

apparently in this case the guy had body armor so even if someone had a gun there wouldnt be much he could do vs. a semi-auto and body armor.
Which makes you wonder how he could get away with having a semi-auto rifle and buying several thousand ammos..

The assault-rifle ban was not renewed here in the U.S so he was capable of legally purchasing it; then again all the guns were purchased legally here in CO. Also, Colorado law doesn't allow for people to be monitored when they make purchases such as in this case.

So yeah, crazy shit. How ever this smells like a flag false operation. Media has most likely started arguing about stricter weapon laws in USA by now, and by the next week UN small arms treaty will pass, which most likely was the whole point of this. Shit like this has happened before, and it will happen alot more.

Seeing as a lot of the members here are ignorant to the whole conceal carry thing, I guess I'll say something... Most people that go through the class to be able to carry (granted I do not live in a constitutional carry state, so I had to take a course before I was aloud to carry concealed) are taught how, when, where, and why they're to use their firearm. They don't get a concealed permit to go rob a bank, go shoot some guy that called you a name, or kill their ex-wife. You can always get and carry a gun illegally to carry out these dirty deeds.

You don't carry a pistol on you to be a hero every time something bad happens. It's there for you to use to protect your 'life'. It's an option, but not one everybody who carries uses equally. Some people would see fit to pull their firearm on a guy in a parking lot that wants to beat their ass; where I'd be able to stand my ground, and because of my training, I wouldn't need to pull my concealed(it kind of goes off of frame of mind). Most carriers I know would have opt to GTFO of that theater, vs trying to shoot a guy, who clearly has you out gunned and has the advantage of being able to see you. Lets be honest, this isn't the movies-no pun intended- getting that head shot off from 30 yards away while a screaming crowd runs past you would be next to impossible. Chances are he's going to send a couple .223s through you before you can even get focused on the front sight.

Now as far as you guys screaming about the gun laws being too lax... Let say America were to completely ban the ownership of all guns from their citizens.(liberals rejoice, everyone will live forever now!) Now every law abiding citizen is without anything, but maybe a small pocket knife or a baseball bat. Now we've already done such a ban on other things such as; cocaine, heroin, weed, and meth; but somehow in every city I can think of, there are drugs flowing through the streets. I'm to believe that if we cracked down on guns as we have drugs,(complete no tolerance) the problem with people killing each other with guns will just go away, or even at most, lessen the amount of deaths?

I'm sorry, but that's a lot to swallow. The statics which show America having some of the highest number of gun fatalities in a first world county, aren't because of school shootings and these out burst of public killing sprees by seemingly average citizens(which take place around the world in all different cultures). Rather these high fatality statics are from the intercity drug/gang wars that go on ever single day in almost every major city(and smaller cities) in the U.S. These gun laws would not -for a second- prevent any of these gangsters or cartel members from getting their hands on a firearm, but the media, politicians, and anti-gun advocates love to lump these statics into coverage of generally rare(in comparison) occurrence of mass shooting sprees, to gain votes for their agenda.

If I'm going to kill my neighbor and I don't have the opportunity to buy a gun from my local gun shop, I'll just use a knife, a car, some poison. So make sure you ban ownership of automobiles, kitchen utensils, and pet controls/medications/household cleaners... on and on until we're all completely safe from each other <3 or you could choose to realize, you shouldn't give up liberties for security-cherry picking liberties is a slippery slope for the state to take them all.

Anyways, to prevent these problems America has with gun violence, we must look at what's wrong with our society that makes people feel they need to take another person's life. A law isn't going to protect you, only if someone chooses to follow it, will it protect you. At the end of the day, it's a person that caused the event that took place in Colorado, and no amount of legislation is going to stop people from killing other people. It will only further the erosion of our liberties.

TL;DR: not even going to bother summing it up, cause you obviously dungivafuhk.

ITT: People don't understand the requirements to conceal carry in America and think handguns are just passed out to any Joe Blow that wants one. Please educate yourself.

The right has already begun spinning this into a "violence in movies/music" and "no God in America" campaign [See Fox News], and the left is already riding the gun control wave. Makes me sick.

On Topic: Terrible. There isn't much else to say.

If this forum had reps, Fiction would get some, good post.

I'd have you refer back to my last paragraph. Also like I said people will handle situations differently based off of their experiences. I have a martial arts background, so a thug in a parking lot wouldn't seem as much of a theat to my life as it would to someone with no hand to hand training. So it would be reasonable for them to use their concealed.

As far as me and EvGa are concerned, we'll be plankin zombies with our ARs while the anti-gun advs are wondering why there tasers have no effect on the dead!

Pretty much this.

I'd like to add a further note though. I dislike all these blanket cures that people devise when this exact same "anti-guns" debate comes around after each tragic shooting. There is, and never will be, a simple answer to fix this issue. Guns alone aren't the issue. Education and health systems alone are not the cause. The internet community and culture alone is not the problem. Mental health issues alone are not the driving force to commit these crimes. Hell, even dem evil rapperz are not to blame!!! People are unpredictable and our world has gotten to a stage that a multitude of uncontrolable variables will alter a person's perception on the world. We will never live in a perfect world and we will never avoid incidents like this occurring. Putting a ban on one particular avenue or placing the blame on a single system will never fix this problem. Unless we want to go 1984 on this shit, we have to work towards improving society as a whole, as opposed to shunning out the things that we personally hate.

The argument is filled with so much biased and so many pre-agendas that fighting will never stop, our world will never be perfect and these events will keep occurring until the last man lays down his hat for the final time. This is simply the nature of reality; from all the time that's past before us till all that is yet unfold.

Why not placing security guards, armed guards and metal detectors in every "Establishments like cinemas?
Well.. Instead of stricter gun laws?

A. Cost
B. Feasibility
C. Sheer number of potential staff
D. Infringement of freedoms

This is what they did at the aurora mall across the street from the theater some years back after someone was gunned down(besides metal detectors). They imposed strict hours, who's allowed in at what times, etc. However, it's a cinema theater. There hasn't been a case of such violence happening on this scale, or even to a lesser scale to a point they would have needed to consider having armed guards, etc. there. After this of course, they will most likely revamp security/access to the theater.

[quote="MrTwilliger"][/quote]
I'm probably reading it wrong, but from what i understand, you are basically saying we can't do anything about it, and these massacres will just keep happening, just cause shit happens.

Now i can understand carrying pistols and revolvers, but why are people able to buy these without restrictions?

I'm not American, I don't know the exact restriction laws and the types of guns available to the Average Joe so I don't know whether or not such a gun can indeed be bought over the counter. I do believe restrictions perhaps should be re-visited, rather than a blanket ban a simple psychiatric check should be mandatory, perhaps even a past criminal and mental health check. (I have no idea if these things are currently in place, by the way people talk they do not seem to be). With that said I think a total blanket ban on guns is too much of an infringement on those basic rights that these American's just love so much. Enforcing such a ban, like some people wish to do, will only cause backlash far greater than what it will solve. Remember prohibition?

As far as your first sentence goes, your particularly correct. There is nothing we can do to completely stop these events, can we can only mitigate risk. Mitigating risk won't occur by simply putting blanket bans and feeding our biases, though. All the different societal structures must be dealt with, we would have to look at the way different social and economic factors affect different minority and majority groups. Education, health care, internet culture, drugs blah blah blah. These all have different impacts upon different social groups and putting a blanket ban on these wont magically cause the problem to dissolve forever. Oh god why am I re-typing my wall from before? Screw this thread.

TL;DR You will never completely solve the issue, only mitigate risk, and we aren't going to do that through lobby groups and biased leaders.

TheDrop, why shouldn't people be able to own the gun you posted? It's not an assault rifle, it doesn't have selectable fire, it's just a dressed up AR 15 with nothing added to increase its rate of fire, firepower, etc. It just looks fancy... It's no more powerful than your average hunting rifle and fires just the same, one bullet per trigger pull.

I agree with the above two posts btw, neither extreme is the answer.

Thats backwards. The vast majority of homicides in the US are handguns, not semi-automatic rifles. Shown here



But thats largely irrelevant too. If people want to kill people, they'll find a way. Lets say all handguns magically dissappeared. Simply put, it would just increase all the other statistics.

Humans are meant to kill. We are like a disease to this earth.

Meh.. I don't agree with you there.

I 100% Agree! Because there was no such thing as a food chain, and everything in the world existed in a violence free nature before mankind. Ever heard of anthrax? It was here before we were.


@TheDrop.. I wanna say that is photoshopped, or that has to be the worst set up for an AR that I've ever seen before.. It makes no sense.

Also... I think this would be a better choice for killing:

I think this backs up those statistics

Oh man, I replied from my phone before, that AR doesn't look legit now that I see it on a monitor. Either way, it looks ridiculous.

Fiction, I lol'd.

From the source i read it from, they basically compared it to a civilian version of M16. Now im not a gun expert, so I trust you since you know more about guns than me, and sometmies the "news" do exaggerate.

@Ryoko; Yeah i see that. However i still think civilians should not be able to carry assault rifles, simply based on the thought that I dont see it being all that useful being used in defensive ways. I can understand people carrying handguns to protect themselves

An AR15 is the civilian version of an M16, meaning it doesn't have selectable fire rates. AKA, it won't shoot fully auto or burst. It's simply a semi-auto rifle just like any other hunting rifle and it can be chambered in the same size as most common hunting rifles. The only difference is it can hold a slightly bigger magazine.

So yea, the media calling the AR used in the shooting an "Assualt rifle" stems from ignorance. They don't know the definition of assault rifle.

That is the correct image of the gun that Holmes used.

So basically, its a handgun (in terms of shooting) with a bigger capacity..?

Yea, that's an ar15, not an assault rifle.

I guess you could say that. It's similar in that it fires a single shot fir each pull of the trigger (semi auto),it fires a round similar in size (and smaller than some) ordinary hunting rifles that have been legal to own since forever. It just has a slightly larger magazine. Point being, there's nothing special or exotic about the gun he used.

Not exactly.

This image shows a few examples of ammo.


Now the .223(or 5.56 being very similar) is what the average AR15 fires. Most of your hand guns are going to be chambered in .45/.40/.38-.357/9mm/.22mag. You can obviously tell by looking at the bullets that the .223 is meant to have a high velocity compared to a pistol round. This is because it's meant for longer range situations. Where a hand gun has a slower velocity, but bigger diameter bullet, so that it has the stopping power in a close range situation. Basically you wouldn't use an AR15 to stop someone who has broken into your house, unless you want to shoot your wife/kids/neighbor too on the other side of a wall.

Anyways to make my case for why we should be allowed to own one of these guns.. For one, we've already begun that slippery slope of which guns are legal to own, and which ones are illegal for average civilians. Two, once you start saying a semi-auto firearm is unprotected by the 2nd amendment, you're giving the anti-gun advocates fodder to make the case handguns are not protected and so on. Soon it will be bolt-action rifles and pump action shotguns.. This is why you have gun owners up in arms every time they pass the smallest of legislation on gun rights. It's never what it seems at face value, like all the laws created in this day in age. (would be like congress saying the "F" word is now illegal, just opens the flood gates to ban the rest of the cuss words, but it wouldn't stop there of course.)

Even if I didn't own an AR15 I'd still stand up and defend another man's right to own one, because I know tomorrow, they'll be coming for my .45, then they'll come for my hunting rifles.. then my pocket knives, etc.

One other thing I wanna touch on. If you're from Europe, I don't think you understand the issues we have in our inner cities. We have people that steal, rape, kill, and everything else you can think of, and they get away with it everyday. There are parts, in just about every large city in the U.S, you just don't go to unless you want to get robbed or even murdered. Gun laws haven't had any effect on the murder rates from these parts of town. The guns involved in these incidents are, more often than not, illegal to begin with. So when you have the media, which has an agenda, they're going to spin the facts. They're going to make ppl, like me and EvGa, look like we're white american trash, that own guns because we're paranoid, backwood, cold blooded killers that are just afraid of everything. When really we just love the thrill of shooting/hunting, and have a passion for firearms, and if worst comes to worst, for our protection. We aren't psychotic, we don't need them to make us feel better about our small penises, we just have a love and respect for guns. The media isn't going to paint us honest and law abiding citizens like that, so they'll lump in the inner city murder statics to show how guns kill so many people every year... then show a story about some lunatic, with a CCL, that shot a door to door salesman. It's all to get the sheep on board with their agenda of stripping your rights. (same technique used for everything else involving the media's agenda) Mark my words, once the 2nd amendment is gone, they'll come for the rest, and at a much faster pace.