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.

[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."

[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]

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.

[J.T]

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?

Imagine two kids shooting up a school. Does a teacher have a better chance of stopping them with your retard-action rifle, a semi-auto pistol, or no gun at all because it's a 'gun-free zone' and only the criminals are armed?

Why do you want the school killers to be able to kill more innocent people?

[gabosaurus]

Please tell me why any normal person needs to own an AK-47. I doubt the founding fathers had this in mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/sheriff-gunman...223140323.html

[J.T]

Imagine two kids shooting up a school. Does a teacher have a better chance of stopping them with your retard-action rifle, a semi-auto pistol, or no gun at all because it's a 'gun-free zone' and only the criminals are armed?

Why do you want the school killers to be able to kill more innocent people?

Gabby never told us why she wants more dead innocents

[SassyLady]

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?

What makes you think a ban would have stopped this guy....anyone with murder in their heart will find a weapon to make it happen whether it is legal or illegal.

The part that really upsets me is that our soldiers are supposed to feel safe on their own soil....perhaps they should be allowed to carry their weapons all the time like off duty police officers.

[Noir]

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

[red states rule]

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.

Criminals fully support your call for more gun laws Kart

[IMG]<IFRAME height=345 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z92xi08n3ns" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>[/IMG]

[DragonStryk72]

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.

Yeah, because once a person gets to the point of being fully ready to commit mass-murder/suicide, a possession of illegal firearms charge is really going to stop him. Clearly your logic is unassailable. Batshit crazy existed back in the time of the founders, hard as that might be to believe. Mass murderers have been a part of history since before there was history, and before there were guns, they use crossbows, swords, knives, and even simple bludgeons.

This article doesn't bring up a rational individual who killed people. It talks only about a clearly insane individual, and the only thing that would have been made different was the methodology, not the murders. So unless you can prove that this guy wouldn't have killed anyone if he hadn't had a gun, this isn't a matter of gun control.