They make AR style rifles in different calibers. Yes, the .223 is banned in some states as a deer cartridge. But you can get one in 6.8 or in .308. You can even get one in .22LR if you want to save on ammo costs.

I know you think this is a good point, but you're getting your arguments from the mentally ill, so no.

You need AR-15s to protect yourself and your family and also ALL OF AMERICA from criminals/invasions/tyranny, but P.S. the AR-15 is also pathetically weak and not dangerous.

Then how are you gonna be able to go all Red Dawn?

Here in Maryland, the state legislature is proposing all sorts of new controls, including severe limitations on assault rifles (or as pro-gun folks prefer to call them, modern sporting rifles). This despite the fact that there were exactly two murders with a rifle in MD in 2011.

I know; that's why I said "most" and "typical." Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that the majority of AR-15's sold are in calibers not powerful enough for hunting.

It's called the Second Amendment. Seriously? The state should have the power but they still have restrictions and can't do what ever the f they want.

I'm just saying... seems more like a states rights issue for him than him wanting to ban guns. (right or wrong)

Anyway, he isnt me, so ill stop speculating

RT @HelenLOHara British news is covering the NRA response to Newtown and has had to clarify twice that what they're showing is not a spoof.

lol well you should wake up, if you ban guns in California only they will find their way there and you will have just your 911 phone call to save you.

Pretty sure DBJ is on the record in this thread saying states should have the right to ban guns. I was super surprised he thought so.

You should tell this to the guy who was triumphantly showing us that the D.C. gun ban had seemingly no effect on homicides.

Tsao- Do you have any thoughts on LaPierre's call to create a national database of the mentally ill? (it is unclear what you would do with this database once created)

I'm all about states rights and if a state wants to limit guns that's fine. That's how we are at the moment with assault bans and magazine limitations. I just think that state power is limited by the constitution for an all out banning on firearms.

I wiki'ed it, not my style of game cos I prefer more criminality, murder, puzzles and bright colours but seeing how popular it is in Japan and the corresponding number of school shootings in Japan I didnt look up but assume exist means I can back the banning of this game.

I assume they back explosives control as well as gun control. Could be wrong though, maybe they want to loosen the laws of controlled explosives just like the NEA.

Canada lol.

People, here is the thing.

Its really really offensive to start talking about whether the principle of the school could have stopped Adam Lanza if she was armed. There is no evidence whatsoever she would have carried a gun, unless you are in favour of forcing teachers to carry guns just stfu about whether she could have stopped him.

Just look at the stats, so few teachers use guns in any sense it is a pointless distraction to discuss them being allowed to carry on school grounds stopping this and other school shootings. We also know in this very thread that when a mass shooter crossed paths with a concealed carrier in a mall the concealed carrier didnt fire a single shot and did absolutely nothing to stop the shooter because he was worried about hitting someone behind the shooter.

The NRA trying to institute gun control in games, TV and movies is so hilarious, more so that people itt have tried to defend them. Its like today they decided to prove they are part of the problem and not the solution.

I mean WTF, gun nuts talk about how banning guns wont get rid of all the millions of guns that already exist but banning movies and games will get rid of data that can be transmitted over the internet and all the games and movies that already exist in America. Anyone who backs a gun/movie/TV ban is literally ignorant, wilfully or not.

Japan has legal guns and produces a large amount of violent movies, TV, games and literally violent porn (so ****ed up even I cant watch it) and yet because their legal guns and the licenses to have them come with stringent controls attached they have significantly less gun violence.

Ive read cited costings with full professional research putting it at 5.5 billion bucks a year. So your back of an envelope figures are a bit off, but not by as much as one would assume.

Banning movies and games doesn't directly impact the NRA and gun manufacturers bottom line, and it doesn't infringe on the 2nd amendment.

So we can't assume that the Principal would have actually done anything. But we can assume that the mall shooter was not at all intimidated by another gun.

This is already legal in Utah and in some places in Texas. Most of the proposals I've seen are not to make this a requirement, but just to allow it on a voluntary basis for those teachers who have CCW permits.

Are you aware of any surveys of teachers about their willingness to carry? Like I said before, if it would be an effective deterrent (that's a matter to be debated), it wouldn't have to be in every school, even; just the decent chance of encountering someone armed might be enough to deter some of these shooters. Is that an unreasonable thought?

I think there's been a lot of hyperbole on both sides about this case. In the interview I saw with the guy, he said something like "all I know is that the next shot he fired after he saw me with my gun was the one that took his own life." I think it's a little hasty to jump to a definite conclusion about the shooter's motivation, but it's at least not an unreasonable possibility that the man who planned to commit suicide by his own hand after his mass shooting didn't want to be in a gun fight... given that he didn't pursue the guy with a gun, but almost immediately took his own life.

And I'm not sure if you meant that as a criticism, that the CCW guy refrained from shooting because he didn't have a clean opportunity.

edit: About this case, at a minimum, I don't think it's an unreasonable possibility that the CCW guy distracted the shooter long enough for at least one person who might have been shot to get away. Wouldn't that be a life saved?

You send your kid off to the State indoctrination facility with the expectation that they will be home for dinner. Some crazy **** with a gun breaks into the State gun free zone and kills your kid and 19 others. The solution: gun control, aka let the State take away YOUR rights. The State F's up, you pay the price. That makes sense.

Meanwhile the same hypocritical ****s that comprise the ruling class will be passing the very laws to restrict YOUR freedom in buildings that are protected with metal detectors and armed guards. Try getting in a state office building and killing a bunch of legislators. When they leave to go home at night I'll bet they have armed bodyguards or a concealed weapon of their own. Good for me but not for thee. **** the State.

The principle did something, she brought fists and perhaps a protractor to an assault rifle fight and died a hero.

We know for a fact the mall shooter was not intimidated by another gun given he shot himself with his own gun. He was so scared of the handgun carrying guy, who we are not sure he saw, who ran away without firing a shot - that he proceeded to eat a bullet to save himself from being shot. Genius. Makes perfect sense to me.

yes it's a shame explosives weren't illegal in 1995 could have saved so many lives!

my guess would be it'd be illegal to sell guns to the mentally ill (of which there'd be a partial database).

i have mixed feelings on it.