Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by jaswarb

He could have done more damage with a flammable liquid, a bag of flour and a firecracker, or any of the numerous easily manufactured poisons in powder or gas. People are going to hurt each other. The means is irrelevant. The fact no one in the theater was carrying made them victims. They should distribute weapons to small children and train them in the proper use and safety. Everyone should have the means to defend themselves. If you have every lived in an armed camp you know what polite society and safety is all about.

Yes, he could have made a bomb, would he have been successful? Far less likely than if he carries a couple of guns with him. The means is not irrelevant. People should have the means to defend themselves, ask yourself this ... how many unarmed (firearms) countries do things like this happen in?

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

Yes, he could have made a bomb, would he have been successful? Far less likely than if he carries a couple of guns with him. The means is not irrelevant. People should have the means to defend themselves, ask yourself this ... how many unarmed (firearms) countries do things like this happen in?

Greece is a restricted country when it comes to guns. Look what has happened in the last 6 months. Hasn't happened in Switzerland yet!

What happaned in greece? Some riots, and would you believe only 5 deaths over 2 years relating to the riots? If the general public had access to guns I believe it could have looked a little more like what happened in Libya.

That may be true, but, If the govt weren't restricting there rights, there wouldn't be any riots. And a loss of one life is a HUGE deal depending on who you are talking to.

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

That may be true, but, If the govt weren't restricting there rights, there wouldn't be any riots. And a loss of one life is a HUGE deal depending on who you are talking to.

You are right, the loss of one life is HUGE. My argument is that we can keep those numbers to a minimum by reducing the availability of lethal weapons. The government weren't restricting their rights, they tried to impose higher taxes because they were failing financially.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

You are right, the loss of one life is HUGE. My argument is that we can keep those numbers to a minimum by reducing the availability of lethal weapons. The government weren't restricting their rights, they tried to impose higher taxes because they were failing financially.

Those deaths aren't the fault of guns. People weren't killing people. Deaths happened because of the MASSIVE amounts of people rioting. None of which were intentional I will wager.

My point exactly, would the numbers of deaths increased if the populous would have had easy access to guns (and probably already owned them)? Most definitely.

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

Those deaths aren't the fault of guns. People weren't killing people. Deaths happened because of the MASSIVE amounts of people rioting. None of which were intentional I will wager.

Let's face facts, bombs are difficult to make, require prior knowledge or training and take a heck of a lot of effort. I watched a documentary with the famous Michael Moore, a firearm was offered along with a bank account. Much easier. With all due respect, I don't believe this guy would have killed more than one person had he had no access to a firearm.

Originally Posted by jaswarb

Your statement flies in the face of reality. Suicide bombers are killing dozens everyday all over the world and even in places where private ownership of guns and explosives remains illegal.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I don't believe this guy would have killed more than one person had he had no access to a firearm.

I believe he would have killed more people if he didn't have access to a firearm.

Originally Posted by HNSB

I believe he would have killed more people if he didn't have access to a firearm.

How? Explosives aren't a piece of cake.