Would banning guns have stopped this?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by CaptainObvious, Dec 12, 2012.

  1. pspr


    Why wear a bullet proof vest if you are just going to shoot yourself anyway?
  2. If you go to a mall to shoot at random people, you are probably not thinking clearly to begin with.
  3. pspr


    It turned out not to be a bullet proof vest after all. It was just a load carrying vest. Since he used an AR-15 I'm sure Bronco 'Bama is going to push for the re-introduction of the assault weapons ban.
  4. Max E.

    Max E.

    Why the fuck doesnt congress pass a law whereby they refuse to put these shooters names in the media? If they can do it for minors they could do it for these guys, the only reason these people do this is for their 15 seconds of fame, we should refuse to say the name of the shooter in these cases in my opinion.
  5. Increases your chances of going out with a kill shot to the head.
    So they don't just wound you and capture you.
  6. Right, random shows no sense of style or purpose.
  7. ktm


    Just like the networks stopped showing streakers at sporting events years ago. Now I have to actually go to the game to see some "occupy" tent dwelling nutbag with his junk whipping in the wind get chased down by 19 overweight security guards followed by a hickory shampoo.

    I want to see that from the comfort of my couch.
  8. As well he should. Along with handguns, guns with external magazines/clips and any magazines that carry more than five rounds.

    But if they come for my Winchester 30/30 I'll shooting at them.
  9. Lucrum


    Five rounds is the magic number huh? So it's ok to shoot four people before reloading but not five?

    So your internal magazine capacity of more than five is OK? But an external magazine capacity of more than five should be banned? Five shots is five shots dumb ass. And the dead people are just as dead either way.
    #10     Dec 13, 2012