Flawed_System's forum posts

#1 Posted by Flawed_System (388 posts) -

"Tea Party Radicals"? Thanks, I needed a laugh.

#2 Edited by Flawed_System (388 posts) -

Done. Good luck on your paper.

Answer to last question:

Don't have a favorite (Sorry).

#3 Edited by Flawed_System (388 posts) -

@GS_Dan said:

@Flawed_System: Why are police given firearms without proper training? That's terrifying!

They're trained and qualified. They just don't have enough time at the range in my opinion. They should have a mandatory amount of time allotted for training under stress and in crowded environments (with simunitions). Many places such as MDTS offer force on force training, but you need to pay for it.

#4 Edited by Flawed_System (388 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Flawed_System said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Flawed_System said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Kevin_Cogneto

@Flawed_System said:

Have any of you gun control people actually handled or owned a firearm before? Guns don't shoot themselves and limiting the legal purchase of them is nonsensical. Theft is illegal...did that stop him? Murder is illegal did that stop him? Having two handguns in his possession was illegal and did that stop him? You're naive to think banning the legal purchase of firearms is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Absolutely and completely naive.

- Already been through every possible flawed argument there is. So I'm not getting into yet another debate on why passing another AWB is idiotic.

Just so I understand your logic... Laws against murder don't prevent murder from happening. An assault weapons ban wouldn't prevent criminals from acquiring them. An assault weapons ban is idiotic... Ipso facto, murder laws are idiotic?

Hey man, 60 of these incidents since 1982 clearly more guns is the answer, guys. It's worked so far... right? No? Well, shit.

And you fail to realize at least two major weapon bans were passed in that period...1986 and 1994. Not to mention an inordinate amount of state regulations.

A majority of these tragedies occurred in Gun Free Zones...I wonder why. It's a proven fact that when faced with opposition these criminals collapse and turn the gun on themselves. Ever wonder why there weren't more victims in the Oregon shooting? Because a CCW was drawn and pointed at him. The INSTANT this happened he turned the gun on himself. The logic of disarming people and adding more kill zones makes absolutely no sense to me.

Let's see what you guys think of these regulations when you're placed in a life or death situation and your only defense is to run or die.

2/3 of these conflicts end when a civilian confronts the shooter and 1/3 end when a single law enforcement official eliminates him. I wouldn't want any of you by my side during a conflict.

Not true, read about the Empire state shooting, police came in and shot 9 bystanders when pursuing this one man who was only there for one person. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/24/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-response

Bystanders were hit because they didn't get out of the way (none were killed). NYPD also doesn't require enough firearms training for them to be precision shooters during an armed confrontation. 150 rounds downrange every year isn't even close to enough.

It's not as easy as you would think firing in an accurate manner during high stress situations.

Didnt get out the way? Please never be a cop...

"NYPD also doesn't require enough firearms training for them to be precision shooters during an armed confrontation."

"It's not as easy as you would think firing in an accurate manner during high stress situations."

It's a chaotic environment...you're not going to get pinpoint accuracy.

Please find above what I meant by the statement you're referencing.

"If a cop can't handle this situation, how will every hillbilly with a gun holster do?"

- So you're saying everyone that owns a gun is a "hillbilly" now?

"imagine how much worse it would get from cowboys quickdrawing everywhere, noone would no who the original shooter was. If you get into a situation where everyone is carrying a gun on their belt, you will have even more situations when someone is having a bad day, someone stole their park at the shopping mall so they shoot them."

- Slippery Slope and it hasn't happened yet in states like Texas, at least not to my knowledge. Furthermore, there will never be a situation where "everyone" will have a "gun on their belt."

#5 Posted by Flawed_System (388 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Flawed_System said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Flawed_System

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@Flawed_System said:

Have any of you gun control people actually handled or owned a firearm before? Guns don't shoot themselves and limiting the legal purchase of them is nonsensical. Theft is illegal...did that stop him? Murder is illegal did that stop him? Having two handguns in his possession was illegal and did that stop him? You're naive to think banning the legal purchase of firearms is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Absolutely and completely naive.

- Already been through every possible flawed argument there is. So I'm not getting into yet another debate on why passing another AWB is idiotic.

Just so I understand your logic... Laws against murder don't prevent murder from happening. An assault weapons ban wouldn't prevent criminals from acquiring them. An assault weapons ban is idiotic... Ipso facto, murder laws are idiotic?

That's what we call a straw man.

Your assault rifle avatar leads me to believe you may have a slight bias here.

Prospective Law Enforcement/Military?

So your'e only joining Law Enforcement/Military for the guns....

That's not even close to what I said and you know it.

#6 Posted by Flawed_System (388 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Flawed_System said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Kevin_Cogneto

@Flawed_System said:

Have any of you gun control people actually handled or owned a firearm before? Guns don't shoot themselves and limiting the legal purchase of them is nonsensical. Theft is illegal...did that stop him? Murder is illegal did that stop him? Having two handguns in his possession was illegal and did that stop him? You're naive to think banning the legal purchase of firearms is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Absolutely and completely naive.

- Already been through every possible flawed argument there is. So I'm not getting into yet another debate on why passing another AWB is idiotic.

Just so I understand your logic... Laws against murder don't prevent murder from happening. An assault weapons ban wouldn't prevent criminals from acquiring them. An assault weapons ban is idiotic... Ipso facto, murder laws are idiotic?

Hey man, 60 of these incidents since 1982 clearly more guns is the answer, guys. It's worked so far... right? No? Well, shit.

And you fail to realize at least two major weapon bans were passed in that period...1986 and 1994. Not to mention an inordinate amount of state regulations.

A majority of these tragedies occurred in Gun Free Zones...I wonder why. It's a proven fact that when faced with opposition these criminals collapse and turn the gun on themselves. Ever wonder why there weren't more victims in the Oregon shooting? Because a CCW was drawn and pointed at him. The INSTANT this happened he turned the gun on himself. The logic of disarming people and adding more kill zones makes absolutely no sense to me.

Let's see what you guys think of these regulations when you're placed in a life or death situation and your only defense is to run or die.

2/3 of these conflicts end when a civilian confronts the shooter and 1/3 end when a single law enforcement official eliminates him. I wouldn't want any of you by my side during a conflict.

Not true, read about the Empire state shooting, police came in and shot 9 bystanders when pursuing this one man who was only there for one person. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/24/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-response

Bystanders were hit because they didn't get out of the way (none were killed). NYPD also doesn't require enough firearms training for them to be precision shooters during an armed confrontation. 150 rounds downrange every year isn't even close to enough.

It's not as easy as you would think firing in an accurate manner during high stress situations.

#7 Posted by Flawed_System (388 posts) -

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Flawed_System

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@Flawed_System said:

Have any of you gun control people actually handled or owned a firearm before? Guns don't shoot themselves and limiting the legal purchase of them is nonsensical. Theft is illegal...did that stop him? Murder is illegal did that stop him? Having two handguns in his possession was illegal and did that stop him? You're naive to think banning the legal purchase of firearms is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Absolutely and completely naive.

- Already been through every possible flawed argument there is. So I'm not getting into yet another debate on why passing another AWB is idiotic.

Just so I understand your logic... Laws against murder don't prevent murder from happening. An assault weapons ban wouldn't prevent criminals from acquiring them. An assault weapons ban is idiotic... Ipso facto, murder laws are idiotic?

That's what we call a straw man.

Your assault rifle avatar leads me to believe you may have a slight bias here.

Prospective Law Enforcement/Military?

#8 Edited by Flawed_System (388 posts) -

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Kevin_Cogneto

@Flawed_System said:

Have any of you gun control people actually handled or owned a firearm before? Guns don't shoot themselves and limiting the legal purchase of them is nonsensical. Theft is illegal...did that stop him? Murder is illegal did that stop him? Having two handguns in his possession was illegal and did that stop him? You're naive to think banning the legal purchase of firearms is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Absolutely and completely naive.

- Already been through every possible flawed argument there is. So I'm not getting into yet another debate on why passing another AWB is idiotic.

Just so I understand your logic... Laws against murder don't prevent murder from happening. An assault weapons ban wouldn't prevent criminals from acquiring them. An assault weapons ban is idiotic... Ipso facto, murder laws are idiotic?

Hey man, 60 of these incidents since 1982 clearly more guns is the answer, guys. It's worked so far... right? No? Well, shit.

And you fail to realize at least two major weapon bans were passed in that period...1986 and 1994. Not to mention an inordinate amount of state regulations.

A majority of these tragedies occurred in Gun Free Zones...I wonder why. It's a proven fact that when faced with opposition these criminals collapse and turn the gun on themselves. Ever wonder why there weren't more victims in the Oregon shooting? Because a CCW was drawn and pointed at him. The INSTANT this happened he turned the gun on himself. The logic of disarming people and adding more kill zones makes absolutely no sense to me.

Let's see what you guys think of these regulations when you're placed in a life or death situation and your only defense is to run or die.

2/3 of these tragedies end when a civilian confronts the shooter and 1/3 end when a single law enforcement official eliminates him. Judging by some of these responses I I wouldn't want a majority of you by my side during a conflict.

I personally don't believe another ban will be enforced. Just won't happen. If it does we're going to see more of these tragedies in the future. Won't do a thing because criminals don't obey the law.

#9 Posted by Flawed_System (388 posts) -

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@Flawed_System said:

Have any of you gun control people actually handled or owned a firearm before? Guns don't shoot themselves and limiting the legal purchase of them is nonsensical. Theft is illegal...did that stop him? Murder is illegal did that stop him? Having two handguns in his possession was illegal and did that stop him? You're naive to think banning the legal purchase of firearms is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Absolutely and completely naive.

- Already been through every possible flawed argument there is. So I'm not getting into yet another debate on why passing another AWB is idiotic.

Just so I understand your logic... Laws against murder don't prevent murder from happening. An assault weapons ban wouldn't prevent criminals from acquiring them. An assault weapons ban is idiotic... Ipso facto, murder laws are idiotic?

That's what we call a straw man.

#10 Edited by Flawed_System (388 posts) -

Have any of you gun control people actually handled or owned a firearm before? Guns don't shoot themselves and limiting the legal purchase of them is nonsensical. Theft is illegal...did that stop him? Murder is illegal did that stop him? Having two handguns in his possession was illegal and did that stop him? You're naive to think banning the legal purchase of firearms is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Absolutely and completely naive.

- Already been through every possible flawed argument there is. So I'm not getting into yet another debate on why passing another AWB is idiotic.