evlPanda said...

Mark _australia said...


...and a nutter would still take a pump action to the school / shops etc and go for it. That is because the person is the problem, not the tool.

It sounds like it would be a good idea to both

A) Attend to/fix the nutter
B) Restrict access to pump action shotguns because we can't completely do A)

This is reasonable.

Trouble is any firearm can be used to kill, it wouldn't be hard for some dickh$$d to knock off a dozen people with a bolt action .22lr if they got the idea.


I agree that public shouldn't have access to fully automatic weapons, or rocket launchers, explosives, armored vehicles. I'll also entertain the idea of restricting high cap centrefires in some way, but not banning them as they did here as it infringes on 2nd ammend (Which personally, I think is an important tool to mantain freedom for generations to come in the USA).
You should be required to have a firearms licence to buy a firearm from a gunshop only (whether bought or transfered, no buying directly from another person) and you should have the documentation to prove you did this and you own it legally.

Trouble is this whole topic is reliant on personal opinions, they are never going to all be the same or in agreement. I respect everyones opinion here, but I have my own.

lachlan3556 said...

evlPanda said...

Mark _australia said...


...and a nutter would still take a pump action to the school / shops etc and go for it. That is because the person is the problem, not the tool.

It sounds like it would be a good idea to both

A) Attend to/fix the nutter
B) Restrict access to pump action shotguns because we can't completely do A)

This is reasonable.

Trouble is any firearm can be used to kill, it wouldn't be hard for some dickh$$d to knock off a dozen people with a bolt action .22lr if they got the idea.


I agree that public shouldn't have access to fully automatic weapons, or rocket launchers, explosives, armored vehicles. I'll also entertain the idea of restricting high cap centrefires in some way, but not banning them as they did here as it infringes on 2nd ammend (Which personally, I think is an important tool to mantain freedom for generations to come in the USA).
You should be required to have a firearms licence to buy a firearm from a gunshop only (whether bought or transfered, no buying directly from another person) and you should have the documentation to prove you did this and you own it legally.

Trouble is this whole topic is reliant on personal opinions, they are never going to all be the same or in agreement. I respect everyones opinion here, but I have my own.

That's just gun-nut talk. The second ammendment is always brought up by Americans who think their own government is after them. It's clearly nonsense, and a red herring. If people thought that their own government were going to wage war on them surely they'd prefer some types of missiles or tanks or something a little bit stronger that a pissy gun.

If Americans think that by having a machine gun in they're pick-ups somehow makes them more "free" then that's plain delusional. If you want to live your life in some faux fear of the UN or the return of the British Empire then go ahead, dig your hole, stock it with canned food, count your ammo,read that all important 2nd ammendment an do some whittlin. No-ones interested.

log man said...
That's just gun-nut talk. The second ammendment is always brought up by Americans who think their own government is after them.

It's always the same gun-nuts that pledge allegiance to a flag, chant "U-S-A!", and hold hand to hearts while they sing the national anthem. The only other places with that level of nationalism are Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and North Korea. It's the gun-nuts themselves that will be the foot soldiers of any dictator. And they are arming themselves to the teeth.

The irony is quite scary.

I find it rather interesting how ya all are experts on life in America and American gun laws.
I was not aware that Australians spent so much time in America, well you learn something new every day.

The Seabreeze forum rules state " No abuse, insults or personal attacks"

Beaglebuddy said...

The Seabreeze forum rules state " No abuse, insults or personal attacks"

Cancel the kite forum.

Beaglebuddy said...

I find it rather interesting how ya all are experts on life in America and American gun laws.
I was not aware that Australians spent so much time in America, well you learn something new every day.

Actually I do (for work). Was in Dallas and others just recently, again.
Yes, lotsa nuts cases, as stated.

Basically in this thread we're dealing with a few people who have the very same interest (guns & weapons) as the recent spree killer, as well as Eric Harris, Brejvik and others.

pierrec45 said...

Beaglebuddy said...

I find it rather interesting how ya all are experts on life in America and American gun laws.
I was not aware that Australians spent so much time in America, well you learn something new every day.

Actually I do (for work). Was in Dallas and others just recently, again.
Yes, lotsa nuts cases, as stated.

Basically in this thread we're dealing with a few people who have the very same interest (guns & weapons) as the recent spree killer, as well as Eric Harris, Brejvik and others.

Yep I enjoy shooting and have an interest in guns the same way as some fellas get off on the mechanical marvels of cars and engines.

What's ya point?

Beaglebuddy said...

The Seabreeze forum rules state " No abuse, insults or personal attacks"

Don't upset the seppo, he has easier access to firearms than we do.........

pierrec45 said...

DUDE said...

Beaglebuddy said...

The Seabreeze forum rules state " No abuse, insults or personal attacks"

Don't upset the seppo, he has easier access to firearms than we do.........

Plus technically you're attacking him so he has a 'right' to use any weapon off his considerable arsenal to shoot you. In his view, he'd be defending himself...

That's not right, for instance when you are a concealed carry permit holder you never initiate, you always step back and retreat if possible, using lethal force as a last resort, standing your ground if you are in your own house is permissible.
An example is the Travon Martin/neighborhood watch incident in Florida, the shooter followed the perp, just because you have a gun does not mean you are the new sheriff.
Armed citizens do make for a polite society, road rage incidents and random violence from macho idiots are greatly reduced.

So in group A opinion: 2nd ammendment = gun nut excuse, and basically no real argument for the posession of firearms.

Group B opinion: 2nd ammendment is valid = reason to own, reason to possess firearms.

There's two lines of thought (among others) that the discussion has brought up. Why the name calling and ridicule? Are you trying to tell people how they should think on a discussion forum? Its also akin to racism what is occuring, some are generalising and insulting a large group of people purely on their belief/lifestyle.

Also, if you want to discuss productively; why not discuss any forms of USA law that doesn't begin with outright weapon bans (licencing, registration, sales, criminal penalties, etc)?

Try to keep it civil, its still a public forum with a few ground rules

i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6436150784

Beaglebuddy said...

pierrec45 said...

DUDE said...

Beaglebuddy said...

The Seabreeze forum rules state " No abuse, insults or personal attacks"

Don't upset the seppo, he has easier access to firearms than we do.........

Plus technically you're attacking him so he has a 'right' to use any weapon off his considerable arsenal to shoot you. In his view, he'd be defending himself...

That's not right, for instance when you are a concealed carry permit holder you never initiate, you always step back and retreat if possible, using lethal force as a last resort, standing your ground if you are in your own house is permissible.
An example is the Travon Martin/neighborhood watch incident in Florida, the shooter followed the perp, just because you have a gun does not mean you are the new sheriff.
Armed citizens do make for a polite society, road rage incidents and random violence from macho idiots are greatly reduced.

STAY ON TARGET! STAY ON TARGET!

We are talking about how it is legal for people (...for people that just LOOK like the guy below FFS) to purchase some serious firepower.

On May 22, 2012, Holmes purchased his first weapon, a .40-caliber Glock pistol, at a Gander Mountain shop in Aurora, and six days later a Remington Model 870 shotgun at a Bass Pro Shops in Denver. On June 7, just hours after failing his oral exam at the university, he purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle, with a second .40-caliber Glock pistol following on July 6.

All the weapons were bought legally.

In the four months prior to the shooting, Holmes also bought 3000 rounds of ammunition for the pistols, 3000 rounds for the M&P15, and 350 shells for the shotgun over the internet. On July 2, he placed an order for a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest, two magazine holders and a knife at an online retailer.

So, staying on topic do we all agree gun laws need to change in the U.S.?

lachlan3556 said...

I would also agree further regulation in some states might be a good thing.





Sorry, my spelling error; Amendment not Ammendment. im pretty sure you all knew what I mean't

EDIT: The d%%khead above did dye his hair just before the crime, he didn't look like that beforehand.

An elderly jewellery shop owner in California has foiled a robbery, taking out her handgun and firing at the five perpetrators as they made a frantic dash for the exit.

The 65-year-old woman, who has not been identified, was in the back of the store when a white car pulled up out the front and five men exited the vehicle with guns drawn, Los Angeles Times reports.

The men rushed into the store and threatened customers demanding they place their valuable possessions in pillow cases they were carrying.

They got a shock when less than a minute into the heist an elderly woman burst into the room, firing two shots at the would-be thieves who crashed into each other in their frenzied efforts to flee.

The woman then chased the men out of the store as their getaway car made off without them.

The men caught up a block later and they all escaped.

Police Lt. Jeff Nightengale said the woman was trying to protect the people in her store.

"She felt that these suspects were possibly going to injure the employees or the customer, so she fired two rounds from her handgun towards the suspects, which caused them to flee the store," he said.

Nothing was stolen in the bungled robbery and no one was injured.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8510407/elderly-shop-owner-fires-at-gang-of-thieves