Ok so what exactly is your gun view?

[UCFhonors]

I believe in Constitutional Amendment to Repeal the 2nd amendment so individuals can't own weapons that kills non discretionary. Right now, we don't abide by the Constitution which says people can own any weapon the gov't owns which includes an atom bomb. The reality is that even NRA is hypocritical and illogical when talking about 2nd Amendment and gun laws. You can't have both.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over." -- Dan Hodges

Yup

I thought Roe v Wade made it legal to kill children?

 

[UCFWayne]

People today just want the quick fix. However complex issues cant be solved in 1 or 2 steps. You need a multi layered approach to problems like this. The mental health issues we have in the country are concerning. The real problem is no one wants to do anything about them because its very complex, and its a hard sell.

 

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

So put the 65-year old Vietnam vet in the movie theatre of this most recent shooting. How does it turn out differently?

Use Youtube.

Often the first shot from a Samaritan connects, statistically, as the assailant is distracted.


The Samaritan immediately becomes the target, therefore buying more time for others to escape, even if just seconds.

 

[MACHater02]

Use Youtube.

Often the first shot from a Samaritan connects, statistically, as the assailant is distracted.


The Samaritan immediately becomes the target, therefore buying more time for others to escape, even if just seconds.

You don't live in reality. If someone starts shooting in a dark theatre of 100 people, returning accurate fire would be nearly impossible.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I thought Roe v Wade made it legal to kill children?

Those aren't children! They're just little masses of goo and shit that a woman is freely able to have sucked out at any time they wish.

Until, of course, the body parts of that goo and shit is able to be sold illegally via Planned Parenthood. If there is money involved, then that goo and shit is in fact a "child" and those are "body parts".

The liberal definition on whether they're slaughtering goo or children changes, depending upon whether or not Planned Parenthood executives stand to profit.

 

[jetsaholic]

You don't live in reality. If someone starts shooting in a dark theatre of 100 people, returning accurate fire would be nearly impossible.

Just 'cause you can't shoot for shit doesn't mean everybody else is the same way.

 

[UCFKnight85]

You don't live in reality. If someone starts shooting in a dark theatre of 100 people, returning accurate fire would be nearly impossible.

Look, the 2 girls directly in front of him never had a chance. It's sad and absolutely tragic, but if a deranged asshole wants to go nuts and kill someone that he's a foot from, there's nothing that any person or law can possibly do to stop that. He could have run a blade through their necks just as easily from that distance, being behind them.

However, you're wrong to say you couldn't return fire in a theater. There's plenty of light from the projector to obtain the target, especially since most everyone will be running AWAY from the person and will likely have their heads down. In this case, the guy was in the back row. REturning fire would have been even easier since there was no chance of rounds going past him to injure others- there was a wall there.

If a madman wants to start offing people at close distance with no warning, there's not much anyone can do. What we want is for people to have the ability to at least legally defend themselves and make it possible to get out of the situation.

Instead we have these "gun free zones" that just happen to continuously be the site of these random shootings. It's no coincidence. These dicks pick these places since there's the chance of least armed resistance.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

You don't live in reality. If someone starts shooting in a dark theatre of 100 people, returning accurate fire would be nearly impossible.

It would be pretty clear to see the shooter from the muzzle flash.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Spoke too soon still have a few morons w their heads up their asses who think more laws would help

 

[MACHater02]

Look, the 2 girls directly in front of him never had a chance. It's sad and absolutely tragic, but if a deranged asshole wants to go nuts and kill someone that he's a foot from, there's nothing that any person or law can possibly do to stop that. He could have run a blade through their necks just as easily from that distance, being behind them.

However, you're wrong to say you couldn't return fire in a theater. There's plenty of light from the projector to obtain the target, especially since most everyone will be running AWAY from the person and will likely have their heads down. In this case, the guy was in the back row. REturning fire would have been even easier since there was no chance of rounds going past him to injure others- there was a wall there.

If a madman wants to start offing people at close distance with no warning, there's not much anyone can do. What we want is for people to have the ability to at least legally defend themselves and make it possible to get out of the situation.

Instead we have these "gun free zones" that just happen to continuously be the site of these random shootings. It's no coincidence. These dicks pick these places since there's the chance of least armed resistance.

I'm just quoting a former special forces guy I saw on the news who said it's totally ridiculous. They practice doing this as a team over and over and it still often goes wrong in reality and innocent people get shot. This is with them having the element of surprise. Now I'm sure you all with your time at the range could go from eating popcorn to hitting a moving target in a dark room with 100 people moving about and bumping into you no problem.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I'm just quoting a former special forces guy I saw on the news who said it's totally ridiculous. They practice doing this as a team over and over and it still often goes wrong in reality and innocent people get shot. This is with them having the element of surprise. Now I'm sure you all with your time at the range could go from eating popcorn to hitting a moving target in a dark room with 100 people moving about and bumping into you no problem.

There's a lot wrong with this comment but I'll attempt.

First, the SF does not train for anything remotely close to this scenario. They're trained to infiltrate behind enemy lines and basically off people are quickly as possible. They in fact DO hit targets fairly easily even though things do go wrong- sometimes.

Second, no one ever said that someone legally carrying a pistol could put down the popcorn, draw a pistol, and put a bullet between the bad guys' eyes on the first shot. What I am saying is that it would at least suppress the bad guy and make him take cover or stop firing. While he's doing this, that's more time for people to get the hell out.

In fact, most CCTV footage of legally armed guys taking down shooters involves them using surprise on their side as well. THe bad guy isn't going to identify who exactly is carrying a firearm. Usually they're able to get a direct aim on the shooter without him seeing.

The point of carrying a firearm is not to kill people, it's to make assailants stop what they're doing.

My point is simple: if I had a madman with a firearm between me, my family, and the exit, my odds of getting out are much better with a firearm of my own.

 

[UCFRogerz]

There's a lot wrong with this comment but I'll attempt.

First, the SF does not train for anything remotely close to this scenario. They're trained to infiltrate behind enemy lines and basically off people are quickly as possible. They in fact DO hit targets fairly easily even though things do go wrong- sometimes.

Second, no one ever said that someone legally carrying a pistol could put down the popcorn, draw a pistol, and put a bullet between the bad guys' eyes on the first shot. What I am saying is that it would at least suppress the bad guy and make him take cover or stop firing. While he's doing this, that's more time for people to get the hell out.

In fact, most CCTV footage of legally armed guys taking down shooters involves them using surprise on their side as well. THe bad guy isn't going to identify who exactly is carrying a firearm. Usually they're able to get a direct aim on the shooter without him seeing.

The point of carrying a firearm is not to kill people, it's to make assailants stop what they're doing.

My point is simple: if I had a madman with a firearm between me, my family, and the exit, my odds of getting out are much better with a firearm of my own.

Why is it so obvious for me to see yet so difficult for everyone else?

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Smfh, if I'm a psycho killer & want to kill as many people as possible at a movie theater does someone in the crowd having a gun & shooting back (let alone hitting me) help or hurt me? Pretty obvious if I want to kill people w my gun I don't want a racist gun toter shooting back.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Ban mass murderers from dark places!!!

 

[MACHater02]

There's a lot wrong with this comment but I'll attempt.

First, the SF does not train for anything remotely close to this scenario. They're trained to infiltrate behind enemy lines and basically off people are quickly as possible. They in fact DO hit targets fairly easily even though things do go wrong- sometimes.

Second, no one ever said that someone legally carrying a pistol could put down the popcorn, draw a pistol, and put a bullet between the bad guys' eyes on the first shot. What I am saying is that it would at least suppress the bad guy and make him take cover or stop firing. While he's doing this, that's more time for people to get the hell out.

In fact, most CCTV footage of legally armed guys taking down shooters involves them using surprise on their side as well. THe bad guy isn't going to identify who exactly is carrying a firearm. Usually they're able to get a direct aim on the shooter without him seeing.

The point of carrying a firearm is not to kill people, it's to make assailants stop what they're doing.

My point is simple: if I had a madman with a firearm between me, my family, and the exit, my odds of getting out are much better with a firearm of my own.

Your odds probably are better. The odds of you and the movie theatre being sued as a result of your actions are much higher as well.

 

[UCF-icenhl-06]

Your odds probably are better. The odds of you and the movie theatre being sued as a result of your actions are much higher as well.

well im sure no one cares about the lawsuit right then......but put another way, the people behind the bad guy who's chances of getting shot were much lower become much much higher once some amateur starts shooting in his direction in a dark, chaotic place.

Color me skeptical that an all out shootout in a crowded theater is a better scenario.

 

[btbones]

The fact that he knows good people in that theatre have guns would be quite the deterrent to pulling that shit though . No surprise most of this stuff occurs where these pos cowards know they won't be confronted with armed citizens

 

[UCFKnight85]

well im sure no one cares about the lawsuit right then......but put another way, the people behind the bad guy who's chances of getting shot were much lower become much much higher once some amateur starts shooting in his direction in a dark, chaotic place.

Color me skeptical that an all out shootout in a crowded theater is a better scenario.

I don't know why you are envisioning a wild west shootout but in most all cases of armed self defense, the return fire is extremely short and over in seconds. Either the bad guy is stopped from his actions or he flees from what he's doing. Rarely does he take up position behind a barrier and get into a gun battle.

By the way, if a madman is in a theater with the intent to kill people, the odds are much better of people dying as a result of his fire than yours.

I mean, would you REALLY not pull the trigger and let him blow more people away, all because you think that you "might" hit someone behind him? Keeping in mind of course that most everyone is fleeing AWAY from the gunman, not towards?

The absolute worse scenario for everyone is a psycho in a theater with a weapon and additional magazines, and absolutely no one else present that can provide a competent defense with similar force.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Nope its dark in a theatre. Crazy gun toting white supremacist vigilantes would kill more people than the psycho murderer could ever dream.

 

[MACHater02]

I don't know why you are envisioning a wild west shootout but in most all cases of armed self defense, the return fire is extremely short and over in seconds. Either the bad guy is stopped from his actions or he flees from what he's doing. Rarely does he take up position behind a barrier and get into a gun battle.

By the way, if a madman is in a theater with the intent to kill people, the odds are much better of people dying as a result of his fire than yours.

I mean, would you REALLY not pull the trigger and let him blow more people away, all because you think that you "might" hit someone behind him? Keeping in mind of course that most everyone is fleeing AWAY from the gunman, not towards?

The absolute worse scenario for everyone is a psycho in a theater with a weapon and additional magazines, and absolutely no one else present that can provide a competent defense with similar force.

What if another patron whether armed or unarmed thinks you're the mass murderer?

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Pass laws to protect armed vigilantes from victims confusion!!!

 

[jetsaholic]

Your odds probably are better. The odds of you and the movie theatre being sued as a result of your actions are much higher as well.

What if another patron whether armed or unarmed thinks you're the mass murderer?

Dude, really?

#banmachater02

 

[MACHater02]

Dude, really?

#banmachater02

Ban me for being realistic?

 

[jetsaholic]

Ban me for being realistic?

No, ban you for being stupid. If there is a guy with a gun between me and my family and I have a gun on me, somebody's getting shot first by me, I don't give a fukc who. My family, myself, my loved ones come first.

 

[MACHater02]

No, ban you for being stupid. If there is a guy with a gun between me and my family and I have a gun on me, somebody's getting shot first by me, I don't give a fukc who. My family, myself, my loved ones come first.

Jeez you're slow. What happens when you and 85 are in the same movie and you both respond to the shooter? What happens when a person mistakes one of you for the shooter. In many of these events due to confusion, multiple shooters are reported. I'm talking real life, not xbox.

 

[jetsaholic]

Jeez you're slow. What happens when you and 85 are in the same movie and you both respond to the shooter? What happens when a person mistakes one of you for the shooter. In many of these events due to confusion, multiple shooters are reported. I'm talking real life, not xbox.

I'm talking real life. Just because you can't shoot for shit doesn't me we suck too.

Wanna know what happens if 85 and I are in that theater? That's gonna be one dead fukcing shooter, that's what's going to happen. Sorry that you don't have the stones to do what's necessary.


Did I say stones? I'm sorry, I meant balls.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Smh numbnuts if I want to kill as many people as possible in a theatre with my gun I don't want someone else with a gun shooting at me. Doesn't get any more simple that.

I'm sure these latest shootings would've been really fvcking confusing who shot first

 

[MACHater02]

I'm talking real life. Just because you can't shoot for shit doesn't me we suck too.

Wanna know what happens if 85 and I are in that theater? That's gonna be one dead fukcing shooter, that's what's going to happen. Sorry that you don't have the stones to do what's necessary.


Did I say stones? I'm sorry, I meant balls.

Only on xbox.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

THE ONLY THING THAT STOPS A BAD GUY WITH A GUN IS A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN.

EVEN BETTER IS TWO GOOD GUYS WITH GUN BECAUSE THAT IS >>>>>>>>> ONE BAD GUY WITH A GUN.

IT'S GOD DAMN ARITHMETIC.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Guns don't kill people, white people kill people. #whitelivesdontmatter

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Shootings will skyrocket when shooters know there's a chance victims are armed & may shoot back.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Shooters won't even have to kill anyone. They just have to shoot a couple rounds in the air and everyone will just start killing each other.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Shooters won't even have to kill anyone. They just have to shoot a couple rounds in the air and everyone will just start killing each other.

That's actually what happened in SC, but the lamestream media has the sheeple thinking it was RaCiSm

 

[FearTheKnight]

Guns don't kill people, white people kill people. #whitelivesdontmatter

HOF worthy IMO.

 

[jetsaholic]

Only on xbox.

You're such a fukcing waste of semen.

 

[MACHater02]

You're such a fukcing waste of semen.

LMAO, you suck at xbox too.

 

[jetsaholic]

LMAO, you suck at xbox too.

Please tell me you've never procreated.

 

[UCFWayne]