OK, Chimara, super-dumbass, cite me one fatal attack of a plastic knife. There are probably thousands happening every day but the press just doesn’t cover them. They only cover the stuff where it involves a gun because of the great conspiracy.
As to the 100 round clip:
http://www.surefire.com/mag5-100.html
They do exist.
Well if you want to get technical an AR-15 is a .22
Describe how to ban such a weapon without banning a .22 rifle used for plinking.
Semi auto? Nope
.22? Nope
Gas operated? Nope
Scary looking? Yes, but who decides what is scary?
It looks like government oversight of guns works. Is this supposed to be an argument for less gun control?
This is the scary part: “Due to tremendous demand, we are heavily backordered on our 100-round magazines.”
Of course you just might need it if you have a hundred armed cans plinking back at you.
I admit that I was wrong about that. I’d never even heard of it.
And I didn’t say there were murders or killings involving plastic knives. I said I would trust a CCW holder with a gun over YOU with a plastic knife. Very large difference.
So…nobody has addressed my post. Where I asked what to do about my mentally ill friend who cannot own a gun, but can go to the store and legally buy the ingredients to make bombs.
Crazy people are crazy. I joke about my friend climbing a clock tower, but I know that won’t happen because we don’t have clock towers here. If my friend does finally lose it, he’s going to blow stuff up.
How can we stop this from happening? This is an honest question. My friend is functional enough to stay in his home. What could all of you people suggest to stop him from making bombs and blowing up a mall?
Should we just start rounding up crazy people and locking them up when they haven’t done anything? This is a serious question, because when Tony does go out in a blaze of fire, I’m won’t be like my neighbors who say “He seemed to be such a gentle person, he fosters cats and loves dogs” I’m going to be the one saying “I saw that coming a long time ago”
Don’t play that stupid game. Look, I’m not a gun nut but I’ve fired .22 pistols, .22 plinking rifles and several guns that were .22-250’s. To equate them is total stupidity.
Just because it comes out of the barrel at .22 is irrelevant. It’ what’s behind it. A .22 rim-fire is nothing like what an AR-15 fires. A rim-fire .22 has a charge behind it that is the same diameter than the bullet. Here’s what I’m talking about:
http://www.americanhunter.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1964&cid=59
So, don’t skew the argument with BS. And yes the AR-15 is different than you describe it. From Wiki:
So, cut the Bullshit.
Again, at your peril because I’m not out to kill anyone.
The killing occurred in Aurora, not Denver.
I never heard of those mags either. I have my CCW license, and I carry all the time. If I had been there, I would have hit the floor and hid. If anyone wants to look up the Gifford shooting, there were several people who had guns, but they did as they were trained. They couldn’t get a clear shot so they just hunkered down and prayed.
The much “safer” area of the metropolis.
Yet.
Goddammit, if I ever see you I will kill you with my plastic knife.
(Send me a description.)
See? Didn’t take much, did it.
Are you really that soft that a plastic knife is going to do you in? How about if I bring a Nerf ball and throw it at you? You can run to your mama.
A total US ban (not just 5 states) on assault rifles would have significantly reduced the carnage at this movie theatre.
Plus side for the ban ? Quite a few people in Aurora would be alive today. What if the assault rifle didn’t jam Hey ? Maybe twice the casualties ?
Downside for an Assault weapons ban ? Your turn.
Do I get a choice? I’d much rather be killed with a spork. I mean, my kids would have a cool story for the rest of their lives!
“And this is our new designer… hey, somebody ask him how his dad died. No, really, ask him!”
This. This is what I don’t get: To fly airplanes, you need to qualify for the type you want to fly; a Piper-Cub-level license doesn’t let you fly a Learjet. Can’t legally drive a big rig if all you’ve got is a standard auto license. And yet you can buy pretty much any level of lethality, as long as (a) you’ve got a CC permit and (b) it’s legal in your state.
I got my concealed-carry permit in Massachusetts, a state with some of the most restrictive gun-control laws in the country. There was no extensive training required in the handling and firing of the huge variety of weaponry available even under my state’s laws – just a five-hour qualifying class on everything from the parts of a gun (dummy exemplar) to how to load it (dummy ammo) to safety rules to generally described types of firearms to… well, it was an excellent overview course – and an NRA-devised course, taught by an NRA-accredited instructor, by the way – but there wasn’t a bit of live-fire training required to get my permit.
Being a sensible type, I hired the instructor for a couple of live-fire training courses after my concealed-carry permit arrived and I bought my first handgun. He was a very good teacher of the mechanics of shooting, but still, I learned how to handle just one small segment of the gun world, the .22 semi-auto pistol – and there was no requirement that I get even that much practical education; if I’d wanted, I could have gone right out and bought a semi-auto AR-15, a 12-gauge shotgun, a .357 magnum without any training at all in how to use them. Frankly, the idea that someone with as little practical training as I’ve had could do that scares the crap outta me.
We have varying levels of driver certification in this country, from passenger autos up to the CDL, and each level requires passing a test of knowledge and skill appropriate to that level. So why not a similar system for guns?
Because the Constitution doesn’t guarantee the citizenry a right to keep and bear vehicles.
As long as the current SCOTUS interpretation of the phrase “right to keep and bear arms” remains the same, I highly doubt there will be any kind of knowledge required in order to exercise that right, anymore than there will be any kind of knowledge required in order to vote.
Sigh… You’re quite likely correct. I realize what I suggest is doomed, not least because practical considerations haven’t a snowball’s chance of surviving the hellfire blast of Second Amendment absolutism. One could argue for it under the “well-regulated militia” clause, but good luck with that.