General Chat / Aurora Shooting

I just settled with the level of complexity that's possible here.

Casimir and ling aren't letting this go...
Seems the only way to finish this is to have a gunfight.
Sturmgewehr for casimir vrs assault rifle for ling.

Ohh the irony

Oh, so Germany 2 fucking generations ago vs the States of today? Yeah. Right. Astonishing comparison.

Lol well no. sturmgewehr is an assault rifle is it not ?

At least have the decency and avouch the bullshit you're spewing out around here, will ya?

I dont understand what your trying to say ?
I was just poking fun at this little debate you and ling have going here about guns.
So ... the irony of you two having a gunfight is funny in my mind.

And sturmgewehr means assault rifle in german does it not ?

From the person that has so much to say about guns and gun laws and being german on top of that i would have thought you would have got what im saying.

But anyway. I will leave you and ling to have this debate.

The term "Sturmgewehr" is largely connected to the Third Reich.
Just don't use german words for military and/or gun stuff and you're pretty much safe of stepping into that specific part of history. Their suggestive propaganda complex was pretty efficient in poisoning a lot of words for the future.

Casimir and ling aren't letting this go...
Seems the only way to finish this is to have a gunfight.
Sturmgewehr for casimir vrs assault rifle for ling.

Ohh the irony

highlight the irony. i want to see the irony.

SSSammy, although I agree with you there I can't take you seriously with that avatar of yours.

I think we can pretty much agree to disagree. Shit sucks, but I don't think it is reasonable or plausible to infringe on the rights of gun owners in retaliation to these attacks. In essence, I don't see them as outweighing the benefits of defensive scenarios, which are never reported with such fanfare. Everyone gets up in arms (pun not intended) when there is a "massacre" where a few die, but only gun-related and local news forums talk about a home invasion where all property and life was saved via the presence of a gun in a level-headed and responsible citizen, or in deterring an armed robbery in a store (there was a jewelry store robbery in California recently where the shop owner opened fire on four or five gun-wielding assailants, causing them to flee immediately - no deaths, no property stolen). There are good and bad examples on both sides. It's just a matter of personal preference and worldview which you see as more valid, and where you draw the line of "too much" and really do something about it.

Well, where i was coming from is as follows: Throughout this topic casimir has been anti gun, Casimir saying guns shouldn't be so widely available because you get nutjobs that shoot people . Ling has been pro gun, But says they should be available,just because nutjobs kill people doesn't say the law abiding citizen shouldn't have access. This debate has been going back and forth. So i said that nobody is going to let it slide and said the only way to settle it is through a gun fight(being ironic and some sarcasm). Get it ?

I just settled with the level of complexity that's possible here.

This again. Casimir, we're a lot more alike than I thought.

Ling you at least agreed to MA's proposition of tighter gun control right? Regulation of guns like the regulation of cars. Then level-headed and responsible citizens can own guns, but wackjobs will have a harder time obtaining one just off the internet while sitting on his reclusive ass obsessing over the Joker.

This again. Casimir, we're a lot more alike than I thought.

Ling you at least agreed to MA's proposition of tighter gun control right? Regulation of guns like the regulation of cars. Then level-headed and responsible citizens can own guns, but wackjobs will have a harder time obtaining one just off the internet while sitting on his reclusive ass obsessing over the Joker.

I do and I think I am a bigger gun fanatic than he is.

Ling you at least agreed to MA's proposition of tighter gun control right? Regulation of guns like the regulation of cars. Then level-headed and responsible citizens can own guns, but wackjobs will have a harder time obtaining one just off the internet while sitting on his reclusive ass obsessing over the Joker.

Precisely. I know even gun ranges that have rentals available have some ridiculous suicide and murder/suicide rates, and they take precautions such as requiring a 24-hour period between registration and being allowed to rent/use the range to prevent rash decisions from people in bad positions. You can't really control people - bad stuff is going to happen, and bad people are going to find ways to do what they want to do, however they have come to justify it.

I really do wish we could get a registration/licensing system in place where classes and real time spent with the guns and instructors was involved. The most we have to deal with this now is concealed carry licenses, and in most states it's either the sheriff says "Fuck you" (CA) or you can get one for nothing at all (MT). But in any cases, it's usually not the people carrying concealed you have to worry about - they are usually only carrying between 16 and 30 rounds tops, anyway, for their one gun.

I don't like the idea of linking this to religion either. The concept of "atheists don't have any morals therefore will kill whomever" is stupid, and when it was Christian extremists shooting up a Sikh temple everyone was quiet about it. People will find ways to justify these things to themselves regardless. If it hadn't been "The Joker" it would have been something else.

Agreed about the relgious thing- I'm not sure who you were responding to but this definitely has nothing to do with religion in general.

Not anyone here, it's just something that I have seen tied to the gun debate, and I just wanted to briefly discuss it.

It really has nothing to do with religion. EVERY monotheistic religion has some crazy shit in their respective scripture that can be interpreted by the mentally ill as a permission to punish the "infidels".

I don't even like tighter regulations of guns. Extra money spent just to unsuccessfully prevent something that isn't likely to happen at all.

I don't even like tighter regulations of guns. Extra money spent just to unsuccessfully prevent something that isn't likely to happen at all.

With three shootings in the last month alone you're claiming that this type of event isn't likely to happen at all?

Whether you consider them severe or not given the population of the United States is practically down to opinion. Also, they feed each other. Those on the edge of snapping might be pushed over by the other "examples" getting huge amounts of coverage in the media. Correlation =/= causation, but it's still something to think about. The simple fact is that neither more nor less restrictive policies will do anything about these incidents, long- or short-term.