Barack Obama vows to pursue gun measures in wake of latest massacre - Polidicks

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941199]home made pipe-bombs are incredibly ineffective at killing people in a movie theater. they are big and there's plenty of seats to absorb shrapnel, and that is if they blew up which they usually don't because most homemade pipe-bombs in assaults tend to completely fault. if a pipe-bomb was an acceptable alternative to an assault weapon, they'd be used instead of them a lot more.[/QUOTE] movie theatre seats can't protect against a .22 round, much less a genuine explosion. this isn't a video game, where an explosion is instantly stopped if it hits something. besides, the panic from a bombing like that would make it easy for him to finish off the survivors of the blasts with something like a revolver or even a knife.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36940952]I could possibly understand a pistol for self defence, but it perplexes me as to how anyone can justify a weapon that's more powerful.[/QUOTE] the dude had body armor on

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941218]uh now i'm not a master-hunter, but if you hunt to sustain yourself you'd probably be using weapons that are made to cause as little damage to the animal as possible while still causing death.[/QUOTE] The AR-15 is chambered in .223 or 5.56x45 (Depending on the model.) Those two calibers are commonly used to shoot game. Just because it looks like an "M16" does NOT give it magic power abilities to start blowing bowling ball sized holes in things.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941220]you can't use your houses booby traps in a theater can you[/QUOTE] They're still explosives that he made himself without getting caught or blowing himself up

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941218]uh now i'm not a master-hunter, but if you hunt to sustain yourself you'd probably be using weapons that are made to cause as little damage to the animal as possible while still causing death.[/QUOTE]Which the 7.62x51mm NATO round does quite well. I prefer to kill with one shot but sometimes a quick follow-up shot is necessary.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941221]Numerous objects can kill people. Your point?[/QUOTE] get it through your head, YES numerous objects can kill people, but unlike assault weapons, numerous objects weren't designed specifically with the intention of being able to kill shitloads of people easily holy christ why is this so hard for you to understand????

"ban shit because it isn't practical and could cause death" what are you even serious what. ban sharp scrap metal.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941221]Numerous objects can kill people. Your point?[/QUOTE] holy fuck it's designed to kill people like, it's literally the only thing it's made for

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941240]get it through your head, YES numerous objects can kill people, but unlike assault weapons, numerous objects weren't designed specifically with the intention of being able to kill shitloads of people easily holy christ why is this so hard for you to understand????[/QUOTE] So are you in favor of banning swords and other objects designed for that purpose as well?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941240]get it through your head, YES numerous objects can kill people, but unlike assault weapons, numerous objects weren't designed specifically with the intention of being able to kill shitloads of people easily holy christ why is this so hard for you to understand????[/QUOTE] I've just stopped replying to him. It's been said over a half-dozen times but he is either purposefully ignorant to the difference or incapable of reading.

[QUOTE=Ziron;36941223]movie theatre seats can't protect against a .22 round, much less a genuine explosion. this isn't a video game, where an explosion is instantly stopped if it hits something.[/QUOTE] for fucks sake did you even read what i wrote? thanks for telling me it's not a video game it's very good to know that. a bomb can cause injury either by percussive force, which in a huge area is mitigated because the air has a lot of space to expand in, and a secondary injury would be caused by shrapnel, which in a badly made pipe-bomb there would be plenty of but won't have the power of a bullet by any means.

[QUOTE=Ziron;36941223]movie theatre seats can't protect against a .22 round, much less a genuine explosion. this isn't a video game, where an explosion is instantly stopped if it hits something. besides, the panic from a bombing like that would make it easy for him to finish off the survivors of the blasts with something like a revolver or even a knife.[/QUOTE] yes keep making more and more convoluted hypotheticals to ignore the fact that an assault weapon is designed purely to make this kind of occurrence easier (and before you try to jump down my throat saying i'm claiming that assault weapons were designed to massacre innocents i mean they were designed to kill lots of people in a short amount of time)

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941258]So are you in favor of banning swords and other objects designed for that purpose as well?[/QUOTE] Yes.

[QUOTE=Chrille;36941255]holy fuck it's designed to kill people like, it's literally the only thing it's made for[/QUOTE]Actually, most firearms on the market were [i]not[/i] designed with the specific purpose of killing people. One of the most prolific "assault weapons" is the Ruger Mini-14, which was specifically designed for shooting sports and marketed as such.

Hey maybe some people get off at hunting deer with M4A1 SOPMOD.

Romney seriously beat Obama on a moral issue? Holy fuck, stop the presses. This isn't sarcastic either.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941270]yes keep making more and more convoluted hypotheticals to ignore the fact that an assault weapon is designed purely to make this kind of occurrence easier (and before you try to jump down my throat saying i'm claiming that assault weapons were designed to massacre innocents i mean they were designed to kill lots of people in a short amount of time)[/QUOTE] So are swords, war axes, and other assorted bladed weapons.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36941265]I've just stopped replying to him. It's been said over a half-dozen times but he is either purposefully ignorant to the difference or incapable of reading.[/QUOTE] i think i'm gonna follow your example dude i'm gonna give myself a brain embolism trying to get through to some of these people

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941218]uh now i'm not a master-hunter, but if you hunt to sustain yourself you'd probably be using weapons that are made to cause as little damage to the animal as possible while still causing death.[/QUOTE] 7,62x39 usually leaves a clean, straight wound due to its difficulties at tumbling inside flesh, and its reduced power compared to most hunting calibers. An AK is [I]excellent[/I] for hunting, especially hogs and small deer.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941282]So are swords, war axes, and other assorted bladed weapons.[/QUOTE] AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ARE YOU SERIOUS I WENT OVER THIS LIKE 30 TIMES

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941289]AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ARE YOU SERIOUS I WENT OVER THIS LIKE 30 TIMES[/QUOTE] How does a firearm make it any easier?

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;36941238]Which the 7.62x51mm NATO round does quite well. I prefer to kill with one shot but sometimes a quick follow-up shot is necessary.[/QUOTE] yeah but as far as i know that wasn't illegal even under the AWB.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941270]yes keep making more and more convoluted hypotheticals to ignore the fact that an assault weapon is designed purely to make this kind of occurrence easier (and before you try to jump down my throat saying i'm claiming that assault weapons were designed to massacre innocents i mean they were designed to kill lots of people in a short amount of time)[/QUOTE] Ban Utorrent, by your logic.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941289]AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ARE YOU SERIOUS I WENT OVER THIS LIKE 30 TIMES[/QUOTE] I think he is trying to say it does not matter that a weapon was designed to kill if the majority of people are not using it to kill.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941266]for fucks sake did you even read what i wrote? thanks for telling me it's not a video game it's very good to know that. a bomb can cause injury either by percussive force, which in a huge area is mitigated because the air has a lot of space to expand in, and a secondary injury would be caused by shrapnel, which in a badly made pipe-bomb there would be plenty of but won't have the power of a bullet by any means.[/QUOTE] in that case, i can imagine him making a more tradional IED, placing it in a way that it looks innocent, then leave before it blows. Holmes seems like the type that's resourceful enough to make his own bomb and have a back up plan (like pipe bomb tossing) just in case of an emergency. Either way, Holmes is a nutjob that's resourceful and smart enough to have found a way to kill lots of people quickly. Guns could've easily been substituted if something like the AWB that people here support was passed.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941258]So are you in favor of banning swords and other objects designed for that purpose as well?[/QUOTE] I think he means weapons that can be used to mow down crowds of people Though an IED would be best suited for that purpose

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941297]yeah but as far as i know that wasn't illegal even under the AWB.[/QUOTE] It was. Semi automatic long rifles are considered assault weapons by federal law.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941296]How does a firearm make it any easier?[/QUOTE] HOW DOES A GUN MAKE IT MORE EASY TO KILL A THEATER FULL OF PEOPLE THAN A AXE OR A SWORD HMMM LET ME THINK YEAH YOU'RE RIGHT IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT LIKE THE WHOLE REASON GUNS WERE INVENTED WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE MORE EFFECTIVE AT KILLING PEOPLE THAN SWORDS HUH

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941270]yes keep making more and more convoluted hypotheticals to ignore the fact that an assault weapon is designed purely to make this kind of occurrence easier (and before you try to jump down my throat saying i'm claiming that assault weapons were designed to massacre innocents i mean they were designed to kill lots of people in a short amount of time)[/QUOTE]The features that are commonly attributed to an "assault weapon" are there specifically for the shooter's comfort. Flash hinders so you're not blinded by a three foot ball of fire, pistol grip because it's ergonomic and folding/collapsing stocks for easy carrying or storage. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;36941297]yeah but as far as i know that wasn't illegal even under the AWB.[/QUOTE]It wasn't.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941298]Ban Utorrent, by your logic.[/QUOTE] no because we're not comparing software to guns