Home | News | Forums | Turf Map | Screenshots | Play Turf Wars Now!

DENVER shooting at batman premier

• james87 Jul 21, 2012

  And on the subject of body armour. Here in the uk body armour/additional ballistic plates, etc can be brought online with no back ground checks. I assume it's the same in most states in the US.
• GreenManXphile Jul 21, 2012

  James87💀🔫⚠ wrote:

  And on the subject of body armour. Here in the uk body armour/additional ballistic plates, etc can be brought online with no back ground checks. I assume it's the same in most states in the US.
  

  I've tried here in Minnesota. No cigar. Had to get one from my police officer grandpa. Can't just order them here.
• james87 Jul 21, 2012

  💚♟⌥ĐĄĽĒĶŞ☱♙💚 wrote:

  James87💀🔫⚠ wrote:

  ✂✂✂
  

  I've tried here in Minnesota. No cigar. Had to get one from my police officer grandpa. Can't just order them here.

  Interesting. I have always assumed that with the lax gun laws (as compared to the UK) that body armour would be as easily come by.
• GreenManXphile Jul 21, 2012

  James87💀🔫⚠ wrote:

  💚♟⌥ĐĄĽĒĶŞ☱♙💚 wrote:

  James87💀🔫⚠ wrote:

  ✂✂✂
  

  I've tried here in Minnesota. No cigar. Had to get one from my police officer grandpa. Can't just order them here.

  Interesting. I have always assumed that with the lax gun laws (as compared to the UK) that body armour would be as easily come by.

  You'd think right?! We can own deadly weapons, but not protective armor. It's a broken system.
• mojopilot Jul 21, 2012

  LexSuede wrote:

  Why don't you give the option: all firearms must be illegal to wear in public? Or more restrive rules owning the shit? Why should an ordinary citizen be able to buy an assault rifle made for military use? Just wondering, no side choosen.

  Do you think that would stop someone like this guy? "it's illegal for me to carry guns in public, so I guess my plot has been foiled." it being illegal to kill people supersedes gun laws. Make it illlegal to own or carry guns and only law abiding citizens (the ones you don't have to worry about) will follow the law. Laws do nothing to stop those who disregard laws.

  Continued...
• mojopilot Jul 21, 2012

  As for military style weapons? Let me put it in different, but parallel terms. Should we ban sports cars? We know they can go well over the speed limit, and speed is a factor in many accidents. So we should ban the sale and ownership of sports cars.

  That sounds rediculious, right? Plenty of people own cars that can be flat out dangerous, and many people that own them have little training on how to drive them properly. Yet they can still be owned, and used in a responsible, safe manner. Now replace "cars" with "military style weapons" and the argument still holds true.
• LexSuede Jul 21, 2012

  Ban sportscars? Come on. What is the intended use for a sportscar compared to a weapon?
• ࿇ℛ✘Ꮓ∅ᎡᏰᎪϾᏦ࿇ Jul 21, 2012

  mojopilot wrote:

  As for military style weapons? Let me put it in different, but parallel terms. Should we ban sports cars? We know they can go well over the speed limit, and speed is a factor in many accidents. So we should ban the sale and ownership of sports cars.

  That sounds rediculious, right? Plenty of people own cars that can be flat out dangerous, and many people that own them have little training on how to drive them properly. Yet they can still be owned, and used in a responsible, safe manner. Now replace "cars" with "military style weapons" and the argument still holds true.
  

  👍 it's the same thing and my train of thought. Now I've been thinking on the subject of being to carry on a college campus. Maybe if you had an extra approved extra permit to carry on your campus? Just a thought
• LexSuede Jul 21, 2012

  And yes I seriously believe that a law agaist the possession of weapons will have an impact on the possibility for an idiot to get hold on a weapon. In addition, as some have said in this thread, they would not have used their firearm against the shooter. So what's the point then to have one?
• james87 Jul 21, 2012

  I personally believe everyone should have the ability to defend oneself and their family. Be that with a firearm or a less then leathal weapon. Although being in the UK my choices are limited i know that anyone trying to get into my house is not going to walk out!
• Robo37 Jul 21, 2012

  💚♟⌥ĐĄĽĒĶŞ☱♙💚 wrote:

  James87💀🔫⚠ wrote:

  💚♟⌥ĐĄĽĒĶŞ☱♙💚 wrote:

  James87💀🔫⚠ wrote:

  ✂✂✂
  

  I've tried here in Minnesota. No cigar. Had to get one from my police officer grandpa. Can't just order them here.

  Interesting. I have always assumed that with the lax gun laws (as compared to the UK) that body armour would be as easily come by.

  You'd think right?! We can own deadly weapons, but not protective armor. It's a broken system.

  The system isn't broken it has been purposely made that way. Partly because of the Hollywood shoot out. Had those men not been able to get their hands on body armor the issue would have ended much sooner.

  Would you want a gangbanger near you to have body armor? If it were easy to get hold of for citizens, it would be infinitely easier for criminals to get.
• LexSuede Jul 21, 2012

  💚♟⌥ĐĄĽĒĶŞ☱♙💚 wrote:

  James87💀🔫⚠ wrote:

  💚♟⌥ĐĄĽĒĶŞ☱♙💚 wrote:

  James87💀🔫⚠ wrote:

  ✂✂✂
  

  You'd think right?! We can own deadly weapons, but not protective armor. It's a broken system.

  Why be able to own a deadly weapon in the first place? You point out the beginning of the evil spiral: you own a weapon, your opponent get a stronger weapon and body protection. When you realize that you get better weapon and ammunition and body armor, this in turn leads to... and the cold war era in your neighbourhood is a fact. Why can't you just for a second admit this?
• james87 Jul 21, 2012

  Makes sense. Thanks for enlightening me on the subject.
• mojopilot Jul 21, 2012

  LexSuede wrote:

  And yes I seriously believe that a law agaist the possession of weapons will have an impact on the possibility for an idiot to get hold on a weapon.
  

  That begs the question: was this guy intent on shooting people, or killing them? If his goal was to shoot, then your point is valid. If his goal was to kill then the gun has to be viewed for what it is; a tool. Take guns away and he will find another tool to accomplish his goals. Look at all the attacks in the middle east, they choose to use bombs because they are simple and effective. This guy could have made a few pipe bombs and achieved the same thing. If he did that would anyone be saying we need to close down the plumbing department at home depot?

  Guns are simply tools. Any tool can be used for many things, and most tools can be used with malicious intent.

  Thanks for engaging in an educated debate!
• FRΞΞ☠ΜΛSΟΠ Jul 21, 2012

  @ LexSuede

  You are an idiot. The people who choose to do bad things do not give a shit about what the laws say, OBVIOUSLY! Stricter laws will make it more difficult for people like me to buy, maintain, and continue to buy weapons in the future.

  To further prove you are an idiot, how are you going to regulate animal population such as deer, dove, etc. Without regulation, such as hunting, the animal populations will increase, thus depleting their food supply which will in turn lead to starvation in many cases. What about people like me that used to live in the country? There are many times where a weapon saved our life due to rabid animals walking on to our property, poisonous snakes approaching our house or livestock, or even the common mountain lions that would come up to our house looking for food.
• Tlj Jul 21, 2012

  I used to live in a shitty neighborhood. Everyone had guns, and many of them were acquired illegally. Just because guns are illegal, doesn't mean bad people can't get them. And if one of those bad people decided they wanted to steal from me, or hurt me or a loved one, I would rely on my legally acquired guns to protect myself, my family and my property. If they intend to use the gun for illegal purposes, do you really think they would care about legally owning a gun? A crime is a crime.
• LexSuede Jul 21, 2012

  Thanks @Freemason saying I'm an idiot. I was not talking about hunting, ok. In that matter I agree with you. So now I want you to apologize.
• ࿇ℛ✘Ꮓ∅ᎡᏰᎪϾᏦ࿇ Jul 21, 2012

  Example of the non-effectiveness of laws against firearms: Ecuador,
  A Friend of mine lived in Ecuador where firearms are completely illegal. There was still a but-load of guns there. He had a gun for self protection (Ecuador leads the world for theifs and robberies), there is guns intended for criminal uses, and guns are almost as common as they are here. My point, Strict gun laws do little or nothing to prohibit criminal activity they just prohibit Freedom
• FRΞΞ☠ΜΛSΟΠ Jul 21, 2012

  LexSuede wrote:

  Thanks @Freemason saying I'm an idiot. I was not talking about hunting, ok. In that matter I agree with you. So now I want you to apologize.
  

  LexSuede 7 hours ago Quote
  And yes I seriously believe that a law agaist the possession of weapons will have an impact on the possibility for an idiot to get hold on a weapon. In addition, as some have said in this thread, they would not have used their firearm against the shooter. So what's the point then to have one?

  👆your words

  As for the apology, that's just not going to happen. I stand by what I said earlier.
• mojopilot Jul 21, 2012

  I took the first use of the word idiot as a reference to the shooter.

  He did say "an" idiot, which singles out one "idiot." I don't take that me mean gun owners are idiots.

  I still disagree with what you (lex) have to say and I'll do all that I can to persuade you through education.
• FRΞΞ☠ΜΛSΟΠ Jul 22, 2012

  @lex

  Would you do anything to protect your family, spouse, children (assuming that you have them or plan to), or another innocent victim, even if it meant using a firearm to do it?
• LexSuede Jul 22, 2012

  @Free We have something that we call police. You are rude and disrespectful when you call me an idiot. You don't read the thread, just want to insult people. Thefore you should apologize.
• 🌾ᏦᎻᎪᏞ🌾 Jul 22, 2012

  LexSuede wrote:

  @Free We have something that we call police. You are rude and disrespectful when you call me an idiot. You don't read the thread, just want to insult people. Thefore you should apologize.
  

  The police take at minimum 90 seconds to get to a location, depending on the department (in some rural counties it could take 20 minutes for emergencies). Asking the criminal for a "timeout" until police arrive is risky.
• 🌾ᏦᎻᎪᏞ🌾 Jul 22, 2012

  YOU wrote:

  LexSuede wrote:

  @Free We have something that we call police. You are rude and disrespectful when you call me an idiot. You don't read the thread, just want to insult people. Thefore you should apologize.
  

  The police take at minimum 90 seconds to get to a location, depending on the department (in some rural counties it could take 20 minutes for emergencies). Asking the criminal for a "timeout" until police arrive is risky.

  Sorry I guess feasibly a police vehicle could happen to be patrolling on your block, but I think 90 seconds is a reasonable amount of time to expect them to arrive to an emergency for which you would require a handgun.
• FRΞΞ☠ΜΛSΟΠ Jul 22, 2012

  LexSuede wrote:

  @Free We have something that we call police. You are rude and disrespectful when you call me an idiot. You don't read the thread, just want to insult people. Thefore you should apologize.
  

  I knew you would avoid answering my question because you know that I am right.

  As for the apology, you can kiss my ass.
• LexSuede Jul 22, 2012

  No, you're not right. And you are rude and disrespectful.
• FRΞΞ☠ΜΛSΟΠ Jul 22, 2012

  LexSuede wrote:

  No, you're not right. And you are rude and disrespectful.
  

  I am done talking to you. You are a complete idiot and extremely sensitive.
• LexSuede Jul 22, 2012

  Still rude and disrespectful...
• FRΞΞ☠ΜΛSΟΠ Jul 22, 2012

  LexSuede wrote:

  Still rude and disrespectful...
  

  😘
• LexSuede Jul 22, 2012

  Ha, ha, have a nice day @Free!

Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC