Comic Fury Webcomic Hosting - Horrific murders at Dark Knight Rises premier

The only way I can see it working out here is if we somehow can downgrade to a non-lethal but more of a disabling round. Almost like the beanbag shooters or rubber guns the cops use on riots. They hurt like hell, they'll knock you down for a couple minutes, but you're alive and mostly unharmed. I would be all for that, but I think people take "non-lethal" as a joke, which is unfortunate.

Consider if you will:
-Banning spray paint would not hinder vandalism.
-Banning rope would not stop a lynch mob.
-Banning sleep-aids will not prevent suicide.
-Banning syringes will not stop drug use.
-Banning matches would be of only minor hindrance to an arsonist.

Taking all of this into consideration, I really don't think that banning guns will put an end to violent crime.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that there's any reason someone would ever need an AR-15, and I'm not trying to defend those that think they do.
All I'm saying is that, in my own humble opinion, the legality or illegality of firearms isn't really the issue here.
To narrow this down to such a pointed issue would be much the same as looking over a car that's rusted and falling apart and saying, "Oh, it just needs paint."

the difference:
-spray paint has a purpose other than vandalism
-rope has a purpose other than hanging people
-sleep aids have a purpose other than suicide
-syringes have a purpose other than drug use
-matches have a purpose other than arson

guns have one purpose. to kill.

Marksmanship is considered a sport by many. Personally, I'm quite fond of black powder rifles. (If you really need a 30+ round magazine for anything short of war, you are a crap shot.)
But then again, I can fire -maybe- two rounds a minute with one. :/

And I'm certainly not pointing it at people. Ever. End of story.

The purpose of gun control is not to outright stop gun crime, but hamper it.

The primary purpose of the gun is to kill. Marksmanship was invented as military training. Spray paint doesn't necessarily imply vandalism, but a gun does imply violence. Also, saying guns shouldn't be regulated because they can be used for marksmanship is ridiculous. It's as if I said people should be able to carry around huge swords in order to cosplay as Cloud Strife. The primary purpose of swords is violence, not cosplaying, and the primary purpose of guns is violence, not fun. Letting people run around with such weapons is ridiculous. There shouldn't even be an argument. Not regulating guns is utterly ridiculous not just on a logical level but a fundamental level.
Also, here's a statistic for you: the United States has the lowest level of gun control in the first world. It also has the highest rate of gun crime in the first world. If you don't want something like this happening every couple months, guns should be regulated.

God, it's awful. .-. And of course, I heard about it right before I went to go see TDKR myself, which was probably the worst feeling in the world, because every single damn time someone on the screen pulled out a gun and started shooting, I felt more and more like I was going to vomit 'cus I immediately thought of the massacre and yeah. Not pleasant.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be regulated. In fact, I pretty much agree that there is no reason for people to have assault rifles. What I'm saying is that banning firearms is not going to solve the problem. The problem in this situation stems from the user of the weapon.

But it becomes a whole lot harder to use a weapon when it gets harder to buy a weapon. If guns are just less available that means fewer people will have them and fewer people will use them.

If someone intends to break the law, writing a law that tells them that they can't have a certain tool isn't going to stop them. It's a start, yes, and it will make it a bit more difficult, but in the long run, it won't actually stop a criminal, just make another law he has to break, so eventually we're going to have to look into this sort of thing a bit deeper than the tools used.

That's all I'm saying. I agree that we need more regulation. However, if that's all we chalk it up to, we're painting the car to fix the blown head gasket.

After searching a bit, I couldn't find a definitive estimation of the number of psychopaths in the world; it's anywhere from 1 to 6 percent of the population. What's interesting is that after the attacks in Norway last year, about 400 people signed up for right-wing parties in sympathy with the killer. Using that as a random sample of the population, we can extrapolate the numbers globally to about 560,000 sympathizers of violent ring-wing extremism, with 25,000 of them stationed in the USA. Keep in mind that not all psychopaths are violent (yet), and this small sample is just my rough guesstimation, but that's enough for a massacre every day for the next 68 years in the USA alone. If over 10,000 dollars were spent on the Batman-movie-killer's arsenal, multiplied by even the smallish estimation of violent fascists, the military-industrial complex stands to make 5.6 billion dollars in global arms sales. That seems like plenty of incentive for them to maintain the status quo.

Just because someone is a right-wing extremist or a psychopath does not mean they would necessarily ever intentionally kill anyone. I know people that are extremely right wing, to the point of being irrational, that might actually agree that violence is a solution and that killing others to make a point is sometimes justified but don't own a gun and would never do such a thing themselves even if they might agree with others taking action.

Actually a lot of the extreme-right wing people I know are more into archery as it fits more with the post-apocalyptic state they believe the country is headed in.

I think grenades would be an excellent form of self defense. A mugger accosts you in an alley? Pull out your grenade. "You come near me and we both die!" Mutually Assured Destruction is a valid deterrent; look, it worked for the Cold War and the good guys ended up winning! We need to legalize grenades.

And yeah, the AR-15 is not an automatic rifle. It ain't no assault rifle unless we can achieve 100% frag ratio of the entire auditorium in under a minute! It's just a pussy rifle that only shoots 50 rifle bullets a minute, psshaw.

And yeah I know about that mother's story. It's real. But yeah what she really needed was an AR-15. That way she can pump rifle bullets into the criminal, have the bullets pass through him, pass through her house's door, and hit some kid on the other side of the street. Sweet.

Maturity and argumentation at its finest. Unsubscribing now.

You can subscribe to a user's forum posts? Awesome, show me how.

At the top or bottom, there is the place that says Subscribe or Unsubscribe, happens automatically if you post in there.

Ohhhh, so that's what it's for. Damn Kyo, that's convenient. Thanks, Gecko.
Anyways, I don't see what I said that was so bad. I didn't insult anyone in particular, and everything I said was a jab (yeah, sorry) with an underlying point:

1. Weapons seem to stay legal even as they get more indiscriminately lethal. If we can allow for the likes of AR-15 with drum mag, which is obviously not for hunting (drum mag makes the rifle heavy and inaccurate), then why don't we just drop all pretense and make RPGs available for purchase? Nothing says American Revolution better than RPGs; the de facto guerrilla weapon of choice vs despotic regimes.

2. Saying the AR-15 is just a rifle because it only shoots 50 round a minute is just reinforcing point #1.

3. A rifle bullet can cause severe collateral damage as it over-penetrates many urban targets. Which makes it terrible as a home defense weapon. Shoot a burglar? Bullet passes thru him and hits your neighbor thru the wooden fence.

Specifically not going into most of the points as to avoid getting into the type of conversation which made me leave ComicFury in the first place. (I...get passionate. Too passionate. On a subject which--while I am well-educated on--I am rusty on and not the best advocate for.) But this I felt like responding to. One of the first lessons my dad taught me was along the lines of, "This gun kills your target." *points to a gun which if memory serves, looked to me at the time like it was more powerful and useful*
"This gun stops your target." *points to another gun which he thought was ultimately better*

Basically, yeah, you're right--it's a bad weapon for defense. Certain guns are better than others. The important factor isn't really killing power, but STOPPING power. (Guns which pass through the target in general have very little of that.) I was taught the difference between the two.

Assault weapons were banned in the USA but the ban was lifted.

Large capacity magazines are banned in many states, but they're still out there in large numbers and not for hunters or sharpshooters but gang-bangers in their drive-bys.

I live in a state where the AR-15 and large capacity magazine are illegal. I don't need to drive across state lines to get either as it's easy to get them illegally in New Jersey if you have the cash. But people who follow the law want them legally so they go across state lines and get all the paperwork and still possess them.

If you know how to change a magazine a large capacity clip is unnecessary as it only makes the weapon bulkier and more liable to jam which is what happened in this case. Probably most of the people were killed by the 40 caliber Glock handgun which are quite legal all over the place and don't jam.

What's the most important thing about training to use any AR-15 series rifle? Un-jamming the piece of shit. Tap, slap, pull, repeat. I've had ones that shoot slower than black powder single shot weapons.

As a student of history I can tell you that mass murderers have always existed (Aristotle discussed one case) and only the weapons have changed. Mass murder did happen in the age of single-shot weapons but usually accompanied by an ax or large knife instead of the handgun. However back in American history everyone had a single shot musket over the mantle because of the militia laws and could return fire while waiting for the sheriff to arrive. Those militia laws are what inspired the Second Amendment. If everyone had an assault rifle over their mantle as in Switzerland or Holland would we see things like this? No we'd only see people getting killed by falling rounds after everyone shots their AK-47 into the air at a celebration like in Arab nations where nearly everyone does own a truly automatic assault rifle.

Why are the body counts increasing? Today Americans live in denser populations so there's more people to shoot. With a musket a good marksman could get off 3-5 rounds a minute, a rifle 2-3 rounds a minute, but there'd always be the guy with the brace of pistols too, so it'd only appear to be slow motion to us who are accustomed to fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

That video was a hoot. Everyone goes crazy over "gunny" until the guy who knows firearms comes in, cracks it open expertly, clears it and hands it back calling them all idiots. The difference between the guy who knows and respects weapons and the kids who don't. An empty firearm is only a fancy club.