Shooting at Batman screening in Colorado

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

This is an isolated incident with over 95% of the people that own guns (and I'm guessing here I don't have the actual stats with me atm) that are responsible enough to own a gun. This guy was mentally unstable and as it turns out had an accomplice . This whole thing reeks of a false flag attempt to exploit an election year.

 

[justinsayne]

You can all preach this "make guns illegal" bullshit stance all you want, the fact of the matter remains, if somebody wants a gun, so that they can use to harm or kill another person, they're going to find a way to do so, & if it's not a gun then it'll be some other weapon. Then what are we going to move to make knives, & blunt objects illegal too.

Now if we can move off this stupid debate, which is just going around in circles, & bring it back to the reason this thread was made in the first fucking place. Some brighter news is now coming out of this tragedy, Christian Bale went & visited victems of the shooting in the hospital in hopes of lifting some spirits, supposedly he wanted no press to know he was going to do this, & the media was only made aware after victims start posting pics & status updates to various social media outlets. WB didn't have anything to do with his trip, it was all Bale's idea.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/enterta...ian-bale-visits-aurora-colo-shooting-victims/

 

[Cats Pajamas]

Sorry but guns don't kill people. people kill people.

100% accurate, case closed, no argument against it. To stop crime, you have to ban people. Holmes is a schizo, so ban schizos, right?

Speaking with complete relevance to the case being debated, would a gun ban have prevented this nut from making himself known as a maniac? The amount of explosives he had in his apartment suggests otherwise.

But he wouldn't have been able to if gun sales weren't legal. At least not to the extent or manner he did.

Perhaps not in the same manner... but if not he'd still be capable of blowing up everyone in that theater and most of the people in the surrounding theaters through alternative violent methods. Who the hell knows if they'd have ever got him?

Let me ask everyone a hypothetical... what if everyone in that theater would have had a gun on them, instead of just the shooter?

Guaranteed no one person walks in there and gets away with a mass shooting. Now you and I know it's absurd to think that all men, women, and children watching a movie together armed to the teeth would in any way be safer, but do you think someone would still get the notion to go in there Wild West style and take them all on?

Again, you'd have to ban crazy people, not guns. Regardless of the living situation in Canada, in the US there is a legitimate self-defense application and it's far too late to go back now.

The difference is I'm taking it one step further than you. I guess my question is if you agree making it difficult to obtain a gun decreases gun related violence, why not just make them illegal and be done with it?

I'm sorry man, but there's absolutely no way I could ever see myself agreeing with that. The intent to harm someone is in someone's head, the gun makes absolutely no decision in which direction it is fired.

I don't mean to get into your personal business, but if you've ever tried to acquire anything (and I mean anything) that was illegal, then you know it is a million times easier than buying a gun is right now... I would guarantee you it would take no time at all to find a gun, too. Except now you limit every shot fired to criminal activity, not just recreational hunting or target shooting.

If everyone had a gun, it wouldn't decrease gun violence at all and you'll never hear me say it would, but wouldn't it limit the severity of harm the loner crazies like Holmes could cause with them? That's just the insanity we live in now and you can't stop it from coming more and more.

 

[Slyfox696]

Speaking with complete relevance to the case being debated, would a gun ban have prevented this nut from making himself known as a maniac? The amount of explosives he had in his apartment suggests otherwise.



Perhaps not in the same manner... but if not he'd still be capable of blowing up everyone in that theater and most of the people in the surrounding theaters through alternative violent methods. Who the hell knows if they'd have ever got him?

Let me ask everyone a hypothetical... what if everyone in that theater would have had a gun on them, instead of just the shooter?

Guaranteed no one person walks in there and gets away with a mass shooting. Now you and I know it's absurd to think that all men, women, and children watching a movie together armed to the teeth would in any way be safer, but do you think someone would still get the notion to go in there Wild West style and take them all on?

So let me see if I have this right. A maniac intent on killing people will do so no matter what...unless we give everyone, including children, a gun. Is that what you're saying?

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If someone really wants to hurt people no matter what, that same someone would still hurt people no matter what. You don't get to have it both ways.

Again, you'd have to ban crazy people, not guns.

That's asinine. Being "crazy" is something uncontrollable, a psychological or medical condition. Manufacturing guns, whose sole purpose is killing, is not uncontrollable.

The mantra "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is simply ridiculous. Guns are manufactured for the purpose of killing. People are not. Will people continue to kill people without guns? Sure, but it won't be nearly as easy.

Regardless of the living situation in Canada, in the US there is a legitimate self-defense application and it's far too late to go back now.

Well, that's a load of nonsense. Using that idea, it's far too late for our economy to turn around, so our government should just shut down and say, "the hell with it".

I'm sorry man, but there's absolutely no way I could ever see myself agreeing with that. The intent to harm someone is in someone's head, the gun makes absolutely no decision in which direction it is fired.

But it makes all the difference in the world how easy it is to cause that harm. Why do pro-gun people continually fail to understand this?

I don't mean to get into your personal business, but if you've ever tried to acquire anything (and I mean anything) that was illegal, then you know it is a million times easier than buying a gun is right now... I would guarantee you it would take no time at all to find a gun, too. Except now you limit every shot fired to criminal activity, not just recreational hunting or target shooting.

I'm sorry, but that argument has absolutely ZERO credibility. If it's hard to buy guns illegally, why would you think MORE gun crime would occur? And it's not like law enforcement will lose their guns, so there will still be plenty of firearm protection.

If everyone had a gun, it wouldn't decrease gun violence at all and you'll never hear me say it would, but wouldn't it limit the severity of harm the loner crazies like Holmes could cause with them?

Well...no. You've already argued people who wish to cause harm will do so regardless of the circumstance. All you're doing is giving more crazy people guns.

Have you actually thought about your argument at all, and how it contradicts itself?

That's just the insanity we live in now and you can't stop it from coming more and more.

I'll await the shutdown of the federal government and elected officials to go back home any day now...

 

[Snoe]

Here's my way of thinking, people when mad, with a gun could kill somebody. They could be healthy in the head but when you're mad, you're often unpredictable. If someone crazy wants to kill then yeah, they can kill but the random anger killings will not happen.
Lets say the killer in Colorado was just mad, if guns were illegal nobody would have died, he couldn't have got a gun. Sure he could have bought it illegally but by the he would not be mad. That is why I think guns should be unavailable. crazy pople will always kill but normal peple will not.

 

[Cats Pajamas]

That's asinine. Being "crazy" is something uncontrollable, a psychological or medical condition. Manufacturing guns, whose sole purpose is killing, is not uncontrollable.

The mantra "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is simply ridiculous. Guns are manufactured for the purpose of killing. People are not. Will people continue to kill people without guns? Sure, but it won't be nearly as easy.

By your reasoning, there will not be as many psychos because there are less guns. Now who's spewing "improvable conjectures", Bitch... I will admit defeat as soon as you can point me to ONE SINGLE GUN THAT LOADED ITSELF AND SHOT UP A THEATER OF PEOPLE BY ITSELF. But you can't, can you Mr Improvable Conjectures...

Well, that's a load of nonsense. Using that idea, it's far too late for our economy to turn around, so our government should just shut down and say, "the hell with it".

Oops... I thought we were talking about gun violence, NOT THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY! Stop trying to throw me off with your "improvable conjectures", I just wanna talk about gun control.

But it makes all the difference in the world how easy it is to cause that harm. Why do pro-gun people continually fail to understand this?

Why do you fail to realize that THE BITCH KNEW HOW TO BLOW PEOPLE UP ANYWAY?! Why do you continue to throw me "improvable conjectures"?

I'm sorry, but that argument has absolutely ZERO credibility. If it's hard to buy guns illegally, why would you think MORE gun crime would occur? And it's not like law enforcement will lose their guns, so there will still be plenty of firearm protection...

Okay, sure... now quote any sentence of my original post where I said it would be "hard to buy guns" because what I'm pretty sure I said was:

I would guarantee you it would take no time at all to find a gun, too.

So... what's the deal??? I asked you a ton of questions and you purposely misquoted me. I made a very valid point, which you ignored, that I will state again.

IF EVERYONE HAD A GUN, WOULD JAMES HOLMES WALK INTO A MOVIE THEATER AND BEGAT MORE GUN VIOLENCE????

C'mon man, I'm not debating you because I think you're a left wing wuss, I'm debating you because I think you're actually wrong. No more misquoting. Prove to me how a ban on guns nationwide would have prevented James Holmes from killing 12 and injuring 58 others. C'mon, bitch... no more "improvable conjectures", just answer me.

 

[Slyfox696]

By your reasoning, there will not be as many psychos because there are less guns.

If that's what you took from my statement, I would like to present you as evidence of a greater need for gun control, because I trust no one who would come to such a conclusion has the proper intelligence to handle a firearm.

Now who's spewing "improvable conjectures"

Umm...that would still be you...

I will admit defeat as soon as you can point me to ONE SINGLE GUN THAT LOADED ITSELF AND SHOT UP A THEATER OF PEOPLE BY ITSELF. But you can't, can you Mr Improvable Conjectures...

Yes, you COMPLETELY missed the point.

Mental instability is not a controllable occurrence. Manufacturing of guns is. I have NO idea what you think you read, but you clearly misunderstood completely what I said.

Oops... I thought we were talking about gun violence, NOT THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY! Stop trying to throw me off with your "improvable conjectures", I just wanna talk about gun control.

I was providing a parallel example to illustrate just how ridiculous your statement was. Not surprised that went over your head.

Why do you fail to realize that THE BITCH KNEW HOW TO BLOW PEOPLE UP ANYWAY?! Why do you continue to throw me "improvable conjectures"?

And yet, he chose to use a gun instead. Think about the implication of that. Obviously it was EASIER to kill with guns.

Seriously, why am I having to repeat myself just to make the exact same point?

Okay, sure... now quote any sentence of my original post where I said it would be "hard to buy guns" because what I'm pretty sure I said was:

Umm...right in the part of your post I quoted?

I don't mean to get into your personal business, but if you've ever tried to acquire anything (and I mean anything) that was illegal, then you know it is a million times easier than buying a gun is right now

IF EVERYONE HAD A GUN, WOULD JAMES HOLMES WALK INTO A MOVIE THEATER AND BEGAT MORE GUN VIOLENCE????

And as I already said, and YOU'VE already said, the answer is "yes". Allow me to re-quote you...again...

The intent to harm someone is in someone's head

Why do you fail to realize that THE BITCH KNEW HOW TO BLOW PEOPLE UP ANYWAY?!

Clearly YOU already agree that someone who has it in his mind will find a way to try and hurt people. Why would giving 12 year olds a gun make a difference?

C'mon man, I'm not debating you because I think you're a left wing wuss, I'm debating you because I think you're actually wrong.

Really? I thought you were debating me because you're either drunk or high, and don't have the first clue what you're saying right now. At least that's the impression I've gotten from this latest post of yours. Your first post was fairly reasonable, but this post is borderline delusional.

No more misquoting.

I find it amusing you think me taking exact comments from your own posts is "misquoting".

Prove to me how a ban on guns nationwide would have prevented James Holmes from killing 12 and injuring 58 others. C'mon, bitch... no more "improvable conjectures", just answer me.

I never said a gun ban would stop anyone from killing another person. What I said is that gun bans make it considerably more difficult to do so. Furthermore, I'm saying your asinine assumption that civilians firing their guns blindly in a darkened theater, after being incapacitated with tear gas, is not only completely ludicrous, it is also far more dangerous. Finally, I'm saying you are contradicting yourself by saying intent to harm is in a person's mind, and that a person who wants to harm will do so...and then going on to say that same person won't hurt anyone if we give a bunch of teenagers guns.

I'm SINCERELY hoping you're just drunk right now, which affects your ability to understand what I actually said, as well as explain why you suddenly became so belligerent. If you are drunk, I suggest you wait until you're sober before you post again.

 

[Suibon]

Here's a short story from my personal life that relates to the topic.

I had a fried named Robbie. Robbie had a girlfriend. They were together for 7 years. I and a lot of other folks had known Robbie for most of his life, and obviously knew his girlfriend rather well too. Robbie and his girlfriend Carrie had a house together, but eventually due to issue between them, Carrie and Robbie's relationship was falling apart. They stayed together for a while because they had this house together and a shared responsibility in it as a result, but their relationship was effectively ended.

Robbie took it pretty hard, and the saying "You don't know what you've got until it's gone" took on a whole new meaning for him. He slept next to her every night in misery as he realized he ruined their relationship by not treating her better, and now here she was next to him and she didn't care whether he was there or gone. The love they once shared had fled, and he was largely responsible for it. It ate him up inside as he discovered that he really did love her all along but that stresses in his life ended up blinding him to the fact until it was too late.

Carrie eventually left him for good, moving in with a friend. During this time Robbie did his best to convince her to take him back, convince her to give him another chance, and to try and reconcile the past to once again share the relationship they enjoyed for a period of time. Carrie had moved on though, after Robbies rejections prior to this she was hurt and decided to try and move on without him. Robbie didn't want that to happen, and he anguish grew and grew. He started following her to places, and love turned into obsession. Convinced that he would get her back somehow he even tried to get other people to go to places he knew she was going and try to hook up with her to see if she would, or if she might still be thinking of him and reject the persons advances as a result. My brother was one of the people he had do this unbeknownst to me until well after the fact. He tried over and over to do anything just to see her, and to know what she was up to. He longed for her, and took every opportunity he could to try and be around her. Eventually though, Carrie became scared by Robbies persistence and put a restraining order against him. Of course this took some time for the papers to be processed, and for him to be served, but she went ahead with these actions as Robbie seemed to be dangerously obsessed and hopelessly convinced that he could fix this.

After Robbie was served his papers, he continued to stalk Carrie. He drove past her house, past her work, he'd try to call her, and he tried to spy on her essentially and continued to hire people to go try and hook up with her at bars to see if she was moving on and trying to hook up with someone else in hopes that she wasn't and he could work things out. With all these failures and loneliness mounting and playing on his mind and his emotions, eventually his longing, his pain, his anguish, and his love, turned into something else. Resentment, anger, and these emotions set him on a path of vengeance towards her for putting him in this lonely personal hell despite his efforts.

One of my friends was talking to him on the phone one day and Robbie told him he was watching Carrie through the scope of a high powered rifle. A couple weeks after that, Robbie waited for her to get back to the friends house she was staying at and shot Carrie to death, shot a friend of hers who was driving the car, then went home and shot himself in the head committing suicide. No one knew where he got the gun, and had he not had that gun it's possible he and Carrie would still be alive. I also had a friend about 2 years prior to that who shot himself in the head after his wife told him she was leaving him and taking their kids with her. If he hadn't had that gun, maybe he would have tried something else, but he might have survived that something else. Either way, these people who were both close to me died at their own hands, at the power of a gun. If they were simply outlawed they wouldn't have been able to get them in the first place.

I feel for you, man, I really do. But think of this: if guns didn't exist, would Robbie's thirst for vengeance be derailed if he couldn't procure a gun? If your other friend didn't own or have a gun, what would've stopped him from committing suicide?
​

 

[Cats Pajamas]

If that's what you took from my statement, I would like to present you as evidence of a greater need for gun control, because I trust no one who would come to such a conclusion has the proper intelligence to handle a firearm.

Umm...that would still be you...

Yes, you COMPLETELY missed the point.

Mental instability is not a controllable occurrence. Manufacturing of guns is. I have NO idea what you think you read, but you clearly misunderstood completely what I said.

I was providing a parallel example to illustrate just how ridiculous your statement was. Not surprised that went over your head.

And yet, he chose to use a gun instead. Think about the implication of that. Obviously it was EASIER to kill with guns.

Seriously, why am I having to repeat myself just to make the exact same point?

Umm...right in the part of your post I quoted?



And as I already said, and YOU'VE already said, the answer is "yes". Allow me to re-quote you...again...





Clearly YOU already agree that someone who has it in his mind will find a way to try and hurt people. Why would giving 12 year olds a gun make a difference?

Really? I thought you were debating me because you're either drunk or high, and don't have the first clue what you're saying right now. At least that's the impression I've gotten from this latest post of yours. Your first post was fairly reasonable, but this post is borderline delusional.

I find it amusing you think me taking exact comments from your own posts is "misquoting".


I never said a gun ban would stop anyone from killing another person. What I said is that gun bans make it considerably more difficult to do so. Furthermore, I'm saying your asinine assumption that civilians firing their guns blindly in a darkened theater, after being incapacitated with tear gas, is not only completely ludicrous, it is also far more dangerous. Finally, I'm saying you are contradicting yourself by saying intent to harm is in a person's mind, and that a person who wants to harm will do so...and then going on to say that same person won't hurt anyone if we give a bunch of teenagers guns.

I'm SINCERELY hoping you're just drunk right now, which affects your ability to understand what I actually said, as well as explain why you suddenly became so belligerent. If you are drunk, I suggest you wait until you're sober before you post again.

Well... still not sober but I'm going to post anyway. Once more... point me to ONE gun with the intent to kill and I'll find you 10,000 times more people with that same intent. Child... guns can't kill people. They can't. They're inanimate objects.

We have [in Aurora, CO] a cowardly bitch who took advantage of a theater full of unarmed moviegoers. I maintain my original, unanswered question:

Would a coward walk into a theater full of armed moviegoers and attempt to shoot the place up? Answer is no. If everyone, from 8 to 80, had a gun not even Slyfox would've been dumb enough to take them all on. Not SlyFox's gun versus 200 other guns. That's the point I made which you [assumingly, and I'm being drunkfully polite] averted.

You want stricter gun laws, but all that would do is keep people like SlyFox from having any defense from reality. There's danger outside your house. Unregistered, un-serial-numbered danger OUTSIDE YOUR FRONT DOOR!

Brother man, I can't defend you from a thousand miles away. Tell me how you'd defend yourself if the U.S. banned guns and someone approached you with a gun anyway? Nah, I'm patient... so which karate move would you disarm a gunman with?

No more ignoring my questions (likely with improvable conjectures). Remember, I'm not your enemy, I hate Holmes as much as you. I only want real answers, not improvable conjectures.

Brother man, you ain't never run up on someone on PCP, have you? We're talking Real Criminals vs Idealistic Hippies. Defend numero uno (aka SlyFox)!

I'm begging you... honestly begging you... to defend the honor of sober people everywhere.

 

[Cats Pajamas]

If that's what you took from my statement, I would like to present you as evidence of a greater need for gun control, because I trust no one who would come to such a conclusion has the proper intelligence to handle a firearm.

Lifelong NRA, baby.

And yet, he chose to use a gun instead. Think about the implication of that. Obviously it was EASIER to kill with guns.

Seriously, why am I having to repeat myself just to make the exact same point?

Shooting people in a face to face situation is one million times easier then setting a bomb and blowing them up from miles away. Good call, genius.

Clearly YOU already agree that someone who has it in his mind will find a way to try and hurt people. Why would giving 12 year olds a gun make a difference?

Give a 12 year old a gun and it doesn't mean a damn. Give EVERY twelve year old a gun and suddenly you're afraid to F with a twelve year old.

You've refused to answer any of my questions, and in a show of poor sportsmanship you negative rep'd me. You're a coward and you know it. I'm calling you out [yet again], bitch. Answer the questions.

So let me see if I have this right. A maniac intent on killing people will do so no matter what...unless we give everyone, including children, a gun. Is that what you're saying?

He wouldn't do it with a gun. He'd do it with explosives, which Holmes was equally capable of doing. See original argument.

I'm sorry, but that argument has absolutely ZERO credibility. If it's hard to buy guns illegally, why would you think MORE gun crime would occur?

Every gun shot would be illegal, thereby making every shot of a gun a gun crime. There would be no hunters to average out the gun shots per gun crime equation. 100% of gun shots would be criminal. That's simple math.

Well...no. You've already argued people who wish to cause harm will do so regardless of the circumstance. All you're doing is giving more crazy people guns.

Have you actually thought about your argument at all, and how it contradicts itself?

In crime, guns are used as an advantage because most people aren't prepared to defend themselves from a gun. If everyone, even cowardly SlyFox, had a gun then less people would try to rob cowardly SlyFox with that same tool. Cowardly, stupid SlyFox.

And it's not like law enforcement will lose their guns, so there will still be plenty of firearm protection.

You must be lost, little boy. Most police can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground. You'll never be safe relying on law enforcement.

The mantra "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is simply ridiculous. Guns are manufactured for the purpose of killing. People are not.

How about the Rizzini MS790? It's a 20-gauge trap gun, manufactured for skeet shooting. Unless clay is a living creature? In retort... suicide bomber.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If someone really wants to hurt people no matter what, that same someone would still hurt people no matter what. You don't get to have it both ways.

Where in that quote did you mention a gun hurting someone? You didn't. You enforced my original point. People hurt people, NOT GUNS. I'm not having it both ways. Lets reinforce it for the 1,001st time. Guns do not kill people. People kill people. If you can't blame the gun for the bullets kill, then you can't blame the gun for the human's kill. Nor can you arrest a gun, try it under a court of law, or accuse it of aiding a criminal. Am I speaking to a child?

Furthermore, I'm saying your asinine assumption that civilians firing their guns blindly in a darkened theater, after being incapacitated with tear gas, is not only completely ludicrous, it is also far more dangerous. Finally, I'm saying you are contradicting yourself by saying intent to harm is in a person's mind, and that a person who wants to harm will do so...and then going on to say that same person won't hurt anyone if we give a bunch of teenagers guns.

SlyFox, use your common sense. Pretend guns don't make you wet yourself. If you ever dared own one, would you go all O.K. Corral if you knew every one of your targets had a gun too? Seriously... would you take on 200 people all by your lonesome? Tell you what, you can have all the tear gas you want. Would you take them on then? No, because they'd rape you with lead.

C'mon you coward. Debate me, don't just red rep me because you're backed into a corner and crying. Come on, bitch, do ya feel lucky?

Really? I thought you were debating me because you're either drunk or high, and don't have the first clue what you're saying right now.

Three miles down the road is a township of 400, and 10 miles away from that is the closest "city", a population of 10,000. The suburbs there consist of one street, everyone else in the damned place is furlough. My next door neighbor woke up to a drunken stranger passed out on their living room floor. The guy drove 15 miles from the other direction, broke in, and passed out. What if that was your house, SlyFox? Or your 4th Grade daughter upstairs?

What sheltered world do you live in?

Still I await any of your answers, going back to my original post. No more improvable conjectures, no more misquoting me, no more economy talk (the dollars in the shitter anyway and I could eat you in that debate too), I want some straight answers instead of your private little red rep plus improvable insults. Be a man and answer me or surrender your testicles. You won't need them anyway.

 

[Infinity]

Is this guy actually advocating MORE guns as a means to prevent.... gun violence? You actually brought up the notion that nobody would have attempted this massacre if everyone in the movie theater owned a gun? What the... ?

You wanna know what life is like when everybody has a gun? Leave whatever rural area you probably leave in and come visit NYC. Not Times Square, the NYC that tourists would never step foot in. Ignorant fools in the hood buy guns off the street to stay "safe," too. It's funny how red state republicans would normally detest blue state minorities for their "thuggish" ways, yet their logic on owning guns is strikingly (and to many, ignorantly) similar. Buying a gun ensures your own safety... allegedly.


Oh, and as for you not thinking shooting someone in the face is easier than using a bomb, you're obviously referring to the psychological aspect of killing someone in close quarters as opposed to miles away. It's the same argument people use to question the mental resolve of a military soldier. Killing someone you see through your scope is much easier than driving a blade into somebody's trachea and ripping it out. However, the literal act of pulling a trigger in front of somebody's face is physically simple. The fact that children have accidentally shot people in the head, yet never has a child accidentally built, placed, and detonated a bomb proves said point.


There's a lot of reasons that I'm embarrassed by my country's government, and the gun control laws are definitely one of them. It's not even a Democratic/Republican thing to me anymore. I've lost faith in all forms of government in general.

Oh, and personally... I believe a lot of people who find security in a gun are usually *****es without it. More often then not, they're the type that would practice shooting at a gun range than lift up a weight, practice a punch, or learn how to actually fight. Physical altercations scare them more than the idea of firing a gun. You're right, all the MMA training I go through would mean jack shit if a pussy pulls a trigger in front of me... but you're still a pussy. Little side rant that I usually think over in my head whenever somebody starts acting tough while talking about guns. Especially when they start naming specific models ad if they just performed an impressive physical feat.

 

[Cats Pajamas]

Is this guy actually advocating MORE guns as a means to prevent.... gun violence? You actually brought up the notion that nobody would have attempted this massacre if everyone in the movie theater owned a gun? What the... ?

You wanna know what life is like when everybody has a gun? Leave whatever rural area you probably leave in and come visit NYC. Not Times Square, the NYC that tourists would never step foot in. Ignorant fools in the hood buy guns off the street to stay "safe," too. It's funny how red state republicans would normally detest blue state minorities for their "thuggish" ways, yet their logic on owning guns is strikingly (and to many, ignorantly) similar. Buying a gun ensures your own safety... allegedly.


Oh, and as for you not thinking shooting someone in the face is easier than using a bomb, you're obviously referring to the psychological aspect of killing someone in close quarters as opposed to miles away. It's the same argument people use to question the mental resolve of a military soldier. Killing someone you see through your scope is much easier than driving a blade into somebody's trachea and ripping it out. However, the literal act of pulling a trigger in front of somebody's face is physically simple. The fact that children have accidentally shot people in the head, yet never has a child accidentally built, placed, and detonated a bomb proves said point.


There's a lot of reasons that I'm embarrassed by my country's government, and the gun control laws are definitely one of them. It's not even a Democratic/Republican thing to me anymore. I've lost faith in all forms of government in general.

Oh, and personally... I believe a lot of people who find security in a gun are usually *****es without it. More often then not, they're the type that would practice shooting at a gun range than lift up a weight, practice a punch, or learn how to actually fight. Physical altercations scare them more than the idea of firing a gun. You're right, all the MMA training I go through would mean jack shit if a pussy pulls a trigger in front of me... but you're still a pussy. Little side rant that I usually think over in my head whenever somebody starts acting tough while talking about guns. Especially when they start naming specific models ad if they just performed an impressive physical feat.

Little, tiny boy... who pretends his super cool karate moves would protect him when he himself dare not fight someone out of his weight class.

Little, tiny, baby boy... you talk like you're a big man... have you ever seen Memphis? Have you ever seen New Orleans? Let me watch your karate protect you then.

Little, tiny, baby, sorry boy... with Napoleon syndrome... you've never, ever had to protect your child from a wild animal, have you? Where's your karate moves when a wild dog is chomping into your 5 year olds neck from 50 feet away?

Sad, demented, Napoleon, baby boy... where's your karate moves when James Holmes comes through the fire exit and murders your family and puts a bullet through your eye that doesn't kill you?

Sad little man, you should be buried next to SlyFox in the coward's cemetery. Second amendment for life. You and the unresponsive SlyFox are both cowards. Tell me when to meet you and I'll beat your wuss ass. I'd beat you and then I'd beat that momma's boy Slyfox.

Slyfox, who out of cowardice, refuses to answer one question of mine. SlyFox, who out of paralyzing fear, refuses to answer my questions and instead would rather play with his action dolls then face reality.

You & your karate are fake and they're pathetic. You obviously don't know real life and you obviously are a wimp. Without question. Instead of pussy New York, come down south. We'll eat your bitch ass alive. Period.