Gun nut opens fire in Carson City, Nevada

[gabosaurus]

God bless all the gun nuts.

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/...110909853/1100

[KartRacerBoy]

Isn't the right to own a semiauto great? They really help out when you're hunting and have to cull the herd.

But don't worry. Guns don't kill people. People with semi-auto weapons kill people. So it's all good.

Reasonable regulations, people. Own your guns but military equivalent weapons in civilian hands should not be allowed.

[Little-Acorn]

little gabby SO delights in saying that all gun owners would do the same.

BTW, kartboy, murdering people was already illegal in Nevada (and I believe other states too) before this guy did it.

Explain to us how making more laws would have stopped him, when he was happy to break the ones already on the books?

(That takes care of the _complete_ idiots. Anyone else have a comment?)

[KartRacerBoy]

little gabby SO delights in saying that all gun owners would do the same.

BTW, kartboy, murdering people was already illegal in Nevada (and I believe other states too) before this guy did it.

Explain to us how making more laws would have stopped him, when he was happy to break the ones already on the books?

(That takes care of the _complete_ idiots. Anyone else have a comment?)

Imagine someone with a bolt action rifle shooting at a crowd. Now imagine someone with a semiauto rifle shooting into the same crowd. Who do you think will kill more people? I imagine that the semiauto weapon holder, all else equal, will kill more people. I think it's a reasonable regulation to ban semiauto weapons.

There I took care of you, the complete idiot. Anyone else have an INTELLIGENT COMMENT?

[jimnyc]

Imagine someone with a bolt action rifle shooting at a crowd. Now imagine someone with a semiauto rifle shooting into the same crowd. Who do you think will kill more people? I imagine that the semiauto weapon holder, all else equal, will kill more people. I think it's a reasonable regulation to ban semiauto weapons.

There I took care of you, the complete idiot. Anyone else have an INTELLIGENT COMMENT?

I'm pretty confident that if an idiot is capable of committing murder, he probably doesn't have a problem owning a gun that would be banned. All you would do with more stupid laws is take away guns from people who don't break the law.

[Noir]

I've heard nothing but bad things, Let's make people illegal.

[ConHog]

Imagine someone with a bolt action rifle shooting at a crowd. Now imagine someone with a semiauto rifle shooting into the same crowd. Who do you think will kill more people? I imagine that the semiauto weapon holder, all else equal, will kill more people. I think it's a reasonable regulation to ban semiauto weapons.

There I took care of you, the complete idiot. Anyone else have an INTELLIGENT COMMENT?

So your argument is that okay let's let people have guns that can only kill a few people, but the ones that could kill a lot of people, oh noway they can't have those?


And your ridicolous comment about bolt action rifles tells us, further, what a clown you really are. Hell let's limit the definition of firearms to mean flint locks. Imagine some asshole trying to kill a crowd of people with a flint lock, bet he'd get about one before the rest of the crowd beat the shit out of him. Well either that or he'd illegally obtain a semi automatic firearm.

Reasonable limits? Sure , no one has need to own a Ma Duce, but an AR-15 or its equivalent is a far cry from that weapon.

[KartRacerBoy]

I'm pretty confident that if an idiot is capable of committing murder, he probably doesn't have a problem owning a gun that would be banned. All you would do with more stupid laws is take away guns from people who don't break the law.

I agree with you, but don't you want to take the means to kill MORE people away? A guy with a machine gun shooting into a crowd is going to kill more people than a guy with a slashing at the same crowd with a knife. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to have guns, but the govt has the right to regulate the weapons that can be owned privately. What are reasonable weapons for private ownership? I've seen some nuts argue that since the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the populace to overthrow a tyrannical govt, that the populace needs the same weapons as the govt so they can match them. That, obviously, is stupid. It means if the govt has an atomic weapon, a private individual can have the same weapon.

That's fantasy in the modern world. It might have been valid in the world of black powder canons but not now. That is why the SCt limits 2nd Amendment rights by saying "subject to reasonable regulation."

[KartRacerBoy]

So your argument is that okay let's let people have guns that can only kill a few people, but the ones that could kill a lot of people, oh noway they can't have those?


And your ridicolous comment about bolt action rifles tells us, further, what a clown you really are. Hell let's limit the definition of firearms to mean flint locks. Imagine some asshole trying to kill a crowd of people with a flint lock, bet he'd get about one before the rest of the crowd beat the shit out of him. Well either that or he'd illegally obtain a semi automatic firearm.

Reasonable limits? Sure , no one has need to own a Ma Duce, but an AR-15 or its equivalent is a far cry from that weapon.

ConHog, if you want to ride the slippery slope down your anal canal, enjoy it. If you want to have a reasonable conversation, however, have at it.

[ConHog]

I agree with you, but don't you want to take the means to kill MORE people away? A guy with a machine gun shooting into a crowd is going to kill more people than a guy with a slashing at the same crowd with a knife. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to have guns, but the govt has the right to regulate the weapons that can be owned privately. What are reasonable weapons for private ownership? I've seen some nuts argue that since the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the populace to overthrow a tyrannical govt, that the populace needs the same weapons as the govt so they can match them. That, obviously, is stupid. It means if the govt has an atomic weapon, a private individual can have the same weapon.

That's fantasy in the modern world. It might have been valid in the world of black powder canons but not now. That is why the SCt limits 2nd Amendment rights by saying "subject to reasonable regulation."

And reasonable regulation is not saying "okay a relatively small number of people a year are killed by semi automatic weapons, so NO ONE can have semi automatic weapons." That is completely unreasonable. Hell, more people are killed by idiots who don't have any business driving , but are every year than are killed by semi automatic weapons ; and you have no Constitutional right to drive, so go after people's cars.

[ConHog]

ConHog, if you want to ride the slippery slope down your anal canal, enjoy it. If you want to have a reasonable conversation, however, have at it.

In other words, I just nailed your stupid opinion to the wall and you have no response so back to the insults you go.

[Little-Acorn]

I agree with you, but don't you want to take the means to kill MORE people away?

Yep, better take everyone's cars away right now. They kill a lot more than gunz, you know. And they come equipped with (gasp) silencers!

Can't believe people are STILL making the same uber-dumb comments year after year.........

[KarlMarx]

Up here in my part of Upstate New York a lot of people owned guns because they liked to hunt. While I was growing up, there were few murders or shootings. Now, however, my community has been invaded by people from the city who are not the kind of people you want for a neighbor. Each day there is a news report that so-and-so from the Bronx was arrested for shooting so-and-so from Queens... in short, one gang banger shot another gang banger over a dope deal...

I doubt very much that a 15 year old gang banger went to a gun dealer to buy his "9" so that he could clip one of his rivals. He bought that gun on the street and that gun was stolen.

Gabby's argument that guns should be banned because one nut went on a rampage would make as much sense as banning fertilizer because of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Nuts kill people, criminals kill people, law abiding citizens don't (whether they own semi automatic weapons or not)

[Little-Acorn]

Nuts kill people, criminals kill people, law abiding citizens don't (whether they own semi automatic weapons or not)

Nuts also accuse law-abiding folks of tending to kill people, simply because they own a similar gun; and they make laws to take away guns ONLY FROM LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE and pat themselves on the back for doing so much "good".

BTW, every news report I've read so far says that the slimeball used an AUTOMATIC rifle or AUTOMATIC weapon.

That's a machine gun.

Not a single report yet, has said "semi-automatic"... which is a gun that only fires one shot per trigger pull.

I'm SO glad our reporters are on the job, rigorously vetting their own stories and checking the facts.......

Though for some reason I've never seen a story that made a mistake that made the gun sound LESS dangerous. Every mistake calls a single-shot weapon a machine gun... or refers to a single-shot gun as a scary-sounding "assault rifle" (which is also a machine gun, sometimes with a select-fire switch) instead of what it was, a semiauto.

Never yet seen a story that accidentally called a semi a pump or bolt gun, or called a machine gun a semi.

All these "random-chance" mistakes always go one way, never the other.

Hardly suprising, though. When it comes to guns of any kind, wrong is the new "right". With people like little gabby and kartboy on the job, how could it be otherwise?

[logroller]

a "gun nut", really? Isn't he just a nut with a gun?

hey Kart. If we had a law which required everybody to know the proper use of firearms, this situation would be less common.