Another mass shooting......

janklow

plocc wrote: »

Weapons designed to shoot rapidly at human targets at close range, semi-automatic rifles with detachable clips or magazines, also guns with flash supressors, foldable or telescopic stocks, infrared sight beams.
In other words shit that bangers use to clear da block. I hope that clears it up for you.

"weapons designed to shoot rapidly at human targets at close range" either isn't accurate at all (tell me how many of the 19 weapons referred to in the 1994 AWB were meant for "close range") or can be applied to pretty much ANY gun if you want to.

and plenty of firearms with detachable magazines (not sure exactly what a non-detachable clip would be), flash suppressors and/or folding/telescopic stocks never met the "assault weapon standard" either. infrared sight beams? these things aren't even part of the firearms you're talking about, so that's meaningless.

nope, still not clear. but this might actually be the point.

plocc wrote: »

I by no means claim to be a gun expert. I just know how cats I used to roll with get down and what i've seen with MY EYES.

don't know what this is supposed to mean, but having seen a couple of guns doesn't mean they were "assault weapons."

plocc

I see you wanna debate about this shit. Let me just simplify. You obviously know more about guns than me. Okay. You know the difference between a gun that you hunt game with (shotgun or a 30 odd 6 ),and or a Ak 47 with a banana clip or a drum. The difference between a handgun to protect your home with ,( 44 magnum revolver), or 40 cal gloc with the extended 30 shot clip. ones for civilians, one for military or law enforcement. Its that simple.

janklow

@plocc: i want to debate about it because the fact that people can't define what the assault weapons they freak out about are is an issue. getting past the erroneous definitions and problems with cosmetic differences might let people approach the issue more rationally.

it's easy to note a difference between a bolt-action .30-06 that someone hunts with and an AK clone with a large magazine. however, i can hunt with plenty of rifles that look "military-style" and have all the OMG evil features, and yet are chambered for solid rounds for hunting.

as for defending my home, i'd rather take the semi-automatic with the extended magazine than the .44 Magnum (although not with that exact magazine in this state), and i ABSOLUTELY don't think the former is only for the military or law enforcement. and i guess it goes without saying there's nothing about the former that was affected by the AWB other than the magazine size.

plocc

So basically your saying a gun is a gun regardless of the features or how many times it shoots. If so why is the military outfitted only with semi automatic or fully automatic fire power? And what would be the reason for a regular guy/non thug or gangster to have anything that can shoot 30+ times. other than to show off or brag. I doubt that their gonna have that much drama that they need that much firepower or are you o. Some militia shit waiting for the race war?

plocc

If you aint banging or sitting on some birds and got multi-stacks in the crib there is no need to have a bunch of heavy artillery.

janklow

@plocc: i'm saying guns should be described accurately. to start with, semi-automatic weapons are not anything special or extra-powerful, and they're not in any way restricted to the military. what exactly is so impressive about a semi-automatic weapon? is the M9 that much more deadly of a handgun or a round than some civilian's 92FS because a soldier carries it?

as for fully-automatic weapons, they're heavily regulated, but there's also the fact that for civilian shooting, they're not the cheapest things in the world. when the government is paying for it, it's less of an issue. it's the same reason they can afford to purchase a variety of things i can't.

janklow

reason for a regular guy to have a firearm that shoots 30+ times? any of the reasons we've discussed (self-defense, competitive shooting, recreational shooting, all the stuff the Second Amendment is based on, blah, blah, blah)? if you think a 30-round magazine is only for the military, criminals or braggarts, you're already approaching the concept from a ridiculous perspective. but on the other hand, if i'm a law-abiding citizen, why does it matter if i have a 30-round magazine for my firearm?

plus, please don't tell me that it's logical for criminals to have a gun or a magazine that i don't have, especially if you're arguing for laws prohibiting them, because that's just some backwards nonsense. a criminal needs "heavy artillery" (i have no idea what that means, given what you've said to date) but a civilian does not? this makes absolutely no sense.

plocc

Like I said player, so you saying a gun is gun. So say somebody gets pulled over by the cops riding with an unloaded shotty in a car, and somebody gets caught with an unloaded ak 47. Whos going to jail. since you seem to be knowledged about guns give me a discription .

janklow

like i said, if you want to talk about gun laws, you should talk about the guns accurately.
a car with an unloaded shotgun versus an unloaded ak-47? where is this taking place (city, state), who's driving and/or in the car, is there ammunition in the car, is there anything about either weapon not stated in those brief descriptions that would effect the legality, etc, etc ... this is not really a straightforward question.

plocc

You sound like you might be an attorney on staff for the nra. I admit im not as versed as you are as far as the technical aspects of what constitutes the categoration of different types of firearms. It might be a bit utopian, but if there were a gun law to prevent these wackos and hate mongers from legally purchashing firearms i'd support it 100%. There are societies that work or exist where everybody isnt strapped, (England).

kingblaze84

plocc wrote: »

If you aint banging or sitting on some birds and got multi-stacks in the crib there is no need to have a bunch of heavy artillery.

What about to defend oneself from government tyranny? A govt that fears the people is a good thing in that it won't abuse our rights too much, as what happens in many parts of the world. I support our current gun laws but I do believe there should be a limit in how much ammo and guns a person can buy per year. Mind you, if a nation ever dares to invade America, wouldn't you want some neighbors strapped to the teeth? A nation that has citizens unarmed is easily bullied around by its govt, and God knows a lot of that is happening now. Imagine how govt would act if we were all unarmed.

plocc

Im familiar with that angle too, but believe me if it ever comes to that there is no gun you can buy thats gonna be able to protect you. Like outkast said on their Atliens album , "They got some shit that shoot through walls from where they stay at". Like them drones.

janklow

plocc wrote: »

It might be a bit utopian, but if there were a gun law to prevent these wackos and hate mongers from legally purchashing firearms i'd support it 100%.

just remember that there are already a lot of laws that prohibit crazy people and/or criminals from legally purchasing firearms. plus, a hatemonger might be a fucking scumbag, but he'll still have rights.

janklow

kingblaze84 wrote: »

What about to defend oneself from government tyranny? A govt that fears the people is a good thing in that it won't abuse our rights too much, as what happens in many parts of the world. I support our current gun laws but I do believe there should be a limit in how much ammo and guns a person can buy per year.

what does the bolded even mean? as far as ammunition goes, a lot of the current drama about buying lots of ammo is stirred up by people that don't shoot. thousands of rounds SOUNDS like a lot... until you're actually considering the economics of it, or actually shooting regularly. as for the guns, that's part of the current F&F issue: you HAD dealers saying "these purchasers are suspicious" (as opposed to regular buyers) getting told "fuck it, let the sales go through." but every damn agency wants to look big and have more authority, so...

plocc

It just dont stop.

Ajackson17

I think Mitt Romney might be better because he can reach out to the whites better and they can understand him much better.

Darxwell

kingblaze84 wrote: »

jose324 wrote: »

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ut97x8th1rxh66eo1_500.jpg

So true haha....and damn, the shootings in this country are really getting out of hand now. Americans are angry and pissed off for good reasons (the wrong track this nation is headed too) but their misdirecting their energy in terrible places. I do wonder, in all honesty, what is causing so many White folk to just go nuts and blast up tons of random people who are fellow Americans. American society is rly sick nowadays, morally, spiritually, and financially. The side effects of this are being felt by the innocent and it's sad.

Whites do not see blacks/brown skinned people as full-fledged human beings.

Whites are socialized to disrespect and disregard all non-whites and equality and justice are never seen in action by them only lip service.

Whites are not used to struggle and the few that are are not used to struggle without results so they look for somebody to blame other than who they should. THEMSELVES. Because sorry, if you're white, male and Christian in America there is no excuse for you not to be living COMFORTABLY in this racist fuckin country. Your skin color alone gives you a head start in whatever you want to do in life minus play in the NBA...OH WAIT, what does a cracker care if he cant play ball as well as the #1 Draft pick? This country has put him in a better position to write the #1 Draft Pick's check.

Crackers are just pissed that the economy is so bad even whites have to struggle. they're not used to this kind of stress and division. Other groups are. they're pretty much cracking under the pressure.

genocidecutter

The second I turn 21 Im buying a semi-automatic handgun

janklow

plocc wrote: »

It just dont stop.

if we're talking about today's Empire State Building, i think we should talk about who did the shooting:

suspect: shot one man
responding police: shot suspect AND NINE BYSTANDERS

i fit

@jank is it confirmed that the police are responsible for shooting nine bystanders?

heyslick

The white man is NOT the black mans biggest enemy - the facts sepak for themseves


There's more black men that are killed in America than the War in Iraq and Afgan put together 90% of every black men that's killed is killed by another black men. How ironic this topic is NEVER brought up within these pages - huh?

heyslick

These isolated incidents will always overshadow the reality of these facts within this article - how come this REAL problem never gets any attention? - OH YEAH! ME FORGOT - whitey is the real enemy - RIGHT?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-04-10/trayvon-martin-black-murder-victims/54135730/1

janklow

i fit wrote: »

i fit wrote: »

@jank is it confirmed that the police are responsible for shooting nine bystanders?

that's where it stands now. originally, you had witnesses stating they did not believe the suspect had fired at the police (admittedly, eyewitnesses are terrible when it comes to reliability); now, it seems the NYPD are acknowledging it:
NYPD: Ballistics show all 9 wounded outside Empire State Building were shot by police

All nine people injured during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were wounded by gunfire from the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence.

The veteran patrolmen who opened fire on the suit-clad gunman, Jeffrey Johnson, had only an instant to react when he whirled around and pointed a .45-caliber pistol at them as they approached him from behind on a busy sidewalk.

A laid-off clothing designer fatally shot an executive at his former company outside the Empire State Building on Friday, setting off a chaotic showdown with police in front of one of the world's best-known landmarks.

A laid-off clothing designer fatally shot an executive at his former company outside the Empire State Building on Friday, setting off a chaotic showdown with police in front of one of the world's best-known landmarks.

Officer Craig Matthews shot seven times, and Officer Robert Sinishtaj fired nine times, police said. Neither had ever fired their weapons before on a patrol.

The volley of gunfire felled Johnson in just a few seconds and left nine other people bleeding on the sidewalk.

now, in fairness to these officers, they seem to have repeatedly shot Johnson as well; it's not like he got winged alongside the bystanders. that said, Bloomberg wasted no time going on television and bitching about all the guns that are out there rather than acknowledging who did the majority of the shooting here.

Plutarch

^^ wow that's crazy. puts this whole "shooting massacre" in a slightly different perspective for me at least.

JJ 1975

Why so many mass shootings these days? People are going loco.