Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Guitardian wrote:Yeah I think so far Matty has the thread win.

Maybe if they showed the pictures of the 'real' women who love guns, instead of the bikini-clad hotties who all show up so often at local gun ranges as we all know, (or at least assume if the cover of Guns and Ammo magazine is to be believed), we might not be so keen on them. I'm thinking Momma Fratelli from 'The Goonies' as a prime example. Let me try to think of another... oh yeah crazy astronaught chick on road trip wearing diaper tracking down her cheating lover's wife... and... um... hmm... Mallory Knox from Natural Born Killers. That was what real women think about death and violence right there. (She was hot at least). I want a pic of an ogrish walmart-shopper crazy lady in short shorts going on a rampage blabbing out of her belly rolls under her camo bikini, while yelling at her 10 kids behind her, robbing the place. Then I'll believe it. If anyone can find that pic, please put it up, just to put things in perspective.

We get it.... you DON'T LIKE hot girls with guns.

Does this better suit your personal tastes?




And for the rest of us...

To bad thats the new US compliant Chicago Typewriter.

That crazy astronaut chick was kinda hot though. Just saying.

This one is for you, mattyrm...

http://www.miliwoman.com/

I dunno if I can look at this thread any more... ugh... my GF will start thinking I'm into gay gun porn or something if she walked in on that hairy dude post as I scrolled on by trying to block it from my mind.

You consider that hairy dude porn? You must really love guns or guitar hero.



On a related note, is anyone else wondering which will last longer, Alpharius's armed harem or this thread?

My vote is for Alph!

Maybe the mods forgot about this thread, in which case I will say this thread.

halonachos wrote:Maybe the mods forgot about this thread, in which case I will say this thread.

I think they have!

Shhhhhhhh!!!

I lol at that fat hairy bloke with the gun.

What the hell was he thinking there? ;S

Maybe he's thinking "I like to get my toys out when my wife isn't home."

In the land of Gun Control, United Kingdom, there's a mass shooting where at least 12 people have been killed by a single gunman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/10219655.stm

That is why gunmen target malls and schools. Gun free zones DON'T curb gun violence. It might not happen that day but if you piss someone off they'll just go home, get a gun and bring it to school the next day and even security can't stop them.

Had security been allowed guns at Columbine or VTech the shooters wouldn't have gotten off as many shots as they did. Hell, had other students who probably had guns at home or in their vehicle been allowed to have them in their locker or even on their person holstered, the shootings might have been less horrible.

That happened here on an army base a few months ago. Ergo they don't make you safer, they just make others more dangerous. If all the guns on an army base can't keep professional soldiers safe from one man on a crazy shooting spree, I don't know if it is at possible to be safe anyways. At least with gun restrictions, the shooting sprees would probably be less frequent. Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.

Guitardian wrote:That happened here on an army base a few months ago. Ergo they don't make you safer, they just make others more dangerous. If all the guns on an army base can't keep professional soldiers safe from one man on a crazy shooting spree, I don't know if it is at possible to be safe anyways. At least with gun restrictions, the shooting sprees would probably be less frequent. Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.

I don't know, the guy on the army base was brought down before he finished his shooting spree. This guy got to shoot until he ran out of steam and finished it himself. I'd rather the shooter not get to complete his rampage. Even though the army shooter wounded more people, we know his incident was not as bad as it could have been. He had more planned. The Cumberland shooter shot everyone he wanted to.

Guitardian wrote:That happened here on an army base a few months ago. Ergo they don't make you safer, they just make others more dangerous. If all the guns on an army base can't keep professional soldiers safe from one man on a crazy shooting spree, I don't know if it is at possible to be safe anyways. At least with gun restrictions, the shooting sprees would probably be less frequent. Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.

The terrorist targetted a reception center specifically because no one there was armed and he could cause mass casualties.

Guitardian wrote:That happened here on an army base a few months ago. Ergo they don't make you safer, they just make others more dangerous. If all the guns on an army base can't keep professional soldiers safe from one man on a crazy shooting spree, I don't know if it is at possible to be safe anyways. At least with gun restrictions, the shooting sprees would probably be less frequent. Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.

Do you honestly think that every soldier on every post is walking around with a loaded M4 in full kit 24/7? Wait a min, why am I even asking this... apparently you do. In which case you are YET AGAIN wrong.

Please, do some research before you open your mouth and remove all doubt that you don't have a clue as to what you are saying.

And as already pointed out by Fraz, the Muslim gak head targetted a reception center specifically because no one there was armed and he could cause mass casualties with little to no threat to himself. True to the Typical Muslim cowardly form of fighting.

Guitardian wrote:Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.

Bullets already cost more then gas. Doesn't stop me and millions of other Americans from buying them.

Modqusiition on. Lets all mind Dakka Rule #1 guys-argue the merits of the issues not the persons. Thanks

inquisitor_bob wrote:In the land of Gun Control, United Kingdom, there's a mass shooting where at least 12 people have been killed by a single gunman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/10219655.stm

Aye, and the only reason this is a story is because it is so rare.

I love guns, ive fired more than most, but honestly, this is a dead issue to me.

The only people that whinge about it are our gun toting cousins in the US, im pretty sure its a good thing that we have so few firearms, and i dont think anybody wants it to be any different. You can get firearms in the UK, they are just harder to get. Im happy with that.

Have you seen the general public!? 90% of them are idiots. America is the same, its got more idiots than sane people. And you think everyone getting tooled up is a good idea?

The whole worlds full of bad tempered fething idiots.

I like guns, id have a few if i lived in the USA, but primarily because lots of idiots have one, and ergo the cycle begins. They wind up everywhere.

Lots of guns being on the streets is a bad thing, and the redneck arguments like "but you guys cant rise up and overthrow your government!" (ive actually heard that one) or "if more people had guns then you could defend yourself better!" is a bad one. More guns equals more shootings. Its pretty black and white to me.

It isn't possible to be safe against the one in a million nutter, wherever you are.

In Japan, which has even stricter gun laws than the UK, a man killed seven and injured a bunch more by running a van into a pedestrian area then stabbing a bunch of people with a kitchen knife.

jp400 wrote:

Guitardian wrote:That happened here on an army base a few months ago. Ergo they don't make you safer, they just make others more dangerous. If all the guns on an army base can't keep professional soldiers safe from one man on a crazy shooting spree, I don't know if it is at possible to be safe anyways. At least with gun restrictions, the shooting sprees would probably be less frequent. Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.

Do you honestly think that every soldier on every post is walking around with a loaded M4 in full kit 24/7? Wait a min, why am I even asking this... apparently you do. In which case you are YET AGAIN wrong.

Please, do some research before you open your mouth and remove all doubt that you don't have a clue as to what you are saying.

And as already pointed out by Fraz, the Muslim gak head targetted a reception center specifically because no one there was armed and he could cause mass casualties with little to no threat to himself. True to the Typical Muslim cowardly form of fighting.

Guitardian wrote:Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.

Bullets already cost more then gas. Doesn't stop me and millions of other Americans from buying them.

Okay man, I acknowledge I don't know all the details. I have however done "research" as far as having my brother on a military base many times, and having the MPs at the gate make sure I have all my I.D. and so on before we go in. They were armed. Of course I do not assume that everyone in the army has a gun at all times, because I've been around on base enough to realize that it's just an apartment complex and a dormitory for kids who aren't in college and instead are doing their next best option (other than McDonalds...) Most of those kids on a base are young, and have never fired a weapon in anger, just a mock of one, in training, or at a target to earn their marksmanship badge. They are there to train, not to be shot at. What the scenario that unfolded tells me is that one random person with a death wish and access to arms can cause a lot of damage, even in the security of a military base. The columbine kids got away with going on and on because they attacked a school where nobody was armed. The attack on a base went as long as he could but more armament got in the way, and MPs responded. I give the MP more credit than a high school security guard for handling a crisis situation like this, but in either scenario, a lot of people died because someone went haywire with a gun. No guns means no problem. Yes gun means it could happen anywhere, even places which are supposedly defended, secure. You think you can buy a gallon of bullets more for the price of a gallon of gas? Yeah I'm sure they are more expensive, but you miss the point... how much gas gets used compared to how many bullets? I'd rather just buy food personally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@jp400
If you want to make any more personal attacks instead of discussing the discussion you can feel free to PM me. Everyone else doesn't have to read you insulting me with silly oversimplifications. Insult me all you want just don't make it something everyone else has to read through. That's my last post on that matter (as I am taking my own advice here) and I will ignore any further personal insults from this point foreward unless in PM, in which case... game on.

mattyrm wrote:

inquisitor_bob wrote:In the land of Gun Control, United Kingdom, there's a mass shooting where at least 12 people have been killed by a single gunman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/10219655.stm

Aye, and the only reason this is a story is because it is so rare.

I love guns, ive fired more than most, but honestly, this is a dead issue to me.

The only people that whinge about it are our gun toting cousins in the US, im pretty sure its a good thing that we have so few firearms, and i dont think anybody wants it to be any different. You can get firearms in the UK, they are just harder to get. Im happy with that.

Have you seen the general public!? 90% of them are idiots. America is the same, its got more idiots than sane people. And you think everyone getting tooled up is a good idea?

The whole worlds full of bad tempered fething idiots.

I like guns, id have a few if i lived in the USA, but primarily because lots of idiots have one, and ergo the cycle begins. They wind up everywhere.

Lots of guns being on the streets is a bad thing, and the redneck arguments like "but you guys cant rise up and overthrow your government!" (ive actually heard that one) or "if more people had guns then you could defend yourself better!" is a bad one. More guns equals more shootings. Its pretty black and white to me.

But do you not think there should be some way for responsible individuals to enjoy our right to bear arms while weeding out potential problems? Can I not get a handgun if I am a responsible citizen? Also, it is probably just a fact that if you're going to enjoy the right to bear arms, there is going to be risk involved.

Also, please choose a different choice of words. I consider redneck offensive in the same manner as the n-word.

Guitardian wrote:
Okay man, I acknowledge I don't know all the details. I have however done "research" as far as having my brother on a military base many times, and having the MPs at the gate make sure I have all my I.D. and so on before we go in. They were armed. Of course I do not assume that everyone in the army has a gun at all times, because I've been around on base enough to realize that it's just an apartment complex and a dormitory for kids who aren't in college and instead are doing their next best option (other than McDonalds...) Most of those kids on a base are young, and have never fired a weapon in anger, just a mock of one, in training, or at a target to earn their marksmanship badge. They are there to train, not to be shot at. What the scenario that unfolded tells me is that one random person with a death wish and access to arms can cause a lot of damage, even in the security of a military base. The columbine kids got away with going on and on because they attacked a school where nobody was armed. The attack on a base went as long as he could but more armament got in the way, and MPs responded. I give the MP more credit than a high school security guard for handling a crisis situation like this, but in either scenario, a lot of people died because someone went haywire with a gun. No guns means no problem. Yes gun means it could happen anywhere, even places which are supposedly defended, secure. You think you can buy a gallon of bullets more for the price of a gallon of gas? Yeah I'm sure they are more expensive, but you miss the point... how much gas gets used compared to how many bullets? I'd rather just buy food personally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@jp400
If you want to make any more personal attacks instead of discussing the discussion you can feel free to PM me. Everyone else doesn't have to read you insulting me with silly oversimplifications. Insult me all you want just don't make it something everyone else has to read through. That's my last post on that matter (as I am taking my own advice here) and I will ignore any further personal insults from this point foreward unless in PM, in which case... game on.

I'm not justifying it, but you're probably being personally attacked because of your elitist tone and know-it-all, pedantic attitude.

Guitardian wrote:
Okay man, I acknowledge I don't know all the details. I have however done "research" as far as having my brother on a military base many times, and having the MPs at the gate make sure I have all my I.D. and so on before we go in. They were armed. Of course I do not assume that everyone in the army has a gun at all times, because I've been around on base enough to realize that it's just an apartment complex and a dormitory for kids who aren't in college and instead are doing their next best option (other than McDonalds...) Most of those kids on a base are young, and have never fired a weapon in anger, just a mock of one, in training, or at a target to earn their marksmanship badge. They are there to train, not to be shot at. What the scenario that unfolded tells me is that one random person with a death wish and access to arms can cause a lot of damage, even in the security of a military base. The columbine kids got away with going on and on because they attacked a school where nobody was armed. The attack on a base went as long as he could but more armament got in the way, and MPs responded. I give the MP more credit than a high school security guard for handling a crisis situation like this, but in either scenario, a lot of people died because someone went haywire with a gun. No guns means no problem. Yes gun means it could happen anywhere, even places which are supposedly defended, secure. You think you can buy a gallon of bullets more for the price of a gallon of gas? Yeah I'm sure they are more expensive, but you miss the point... how much gas gets used compared to how many bullets? I'd rather just buy food personally.

Yeah... And your brother being the stellar McDonalds holdover soldier that he is would also inform you that the Gate Guards are bound by general orders to guard everything withing the limits of their post and quit their post only when properly relieved. Which means that if a Shooting happened at say the PX, they will not abandon the main gate to go find out what is going on even if its only a few hundred meters down the road.

They would pick up the phone and report hearing gunshots coming from the PX to command, who in turn acts like a civilian dispatch and sends over other Mp's to investigate. Exactly like their civilian counterparts.
You then run into the same problem on post as you do outside it....

When seconds count and police are only minutes away.

So tell me... what exactly is a mock weapon? Last time I checked, we shot live rounds through real guns downrange. We even do live fire exercises with live ammo being shot at us. Hell, I know a guy that took a round in his 4th point of contact on a live fire range once.

And if you think military bases are secure... well guess what, they are FAR from it. Every road on/off post had a checkpoint on it, but most bases have MILES of unfenced and loosely patrolled boarders usually in dense woodland. If someone REALLY wanted in, they can get in.

Then again, what does the military know... everyone is just a bunch of rejects needing babysitting that could only get a job at McDonalds on the outside if they were lucky, right?


And if Military service men and women are generally held in higher regard and get better jobs on the civilian market then Joe Average... then where does that put you?

And I'm saying that I pay more for ONE bullet then I do a Gallon of gas. Unless I reloaded, my bullets would cost me more then two gallons actually for generic stuff... not the fancy match grade.

The only person here trying to talk off topic is yourself buy trying to flood it useless data and fake accounts. Even you admit that what you are posting is based not in fact and thus is nothing more then hot air. As already stated... Do a little more research before you comment and you will save yourself from having people like myself point out your many flaws.

Yes, what exactly do you mean by the next best option ( other than McDonalds) remark??

Would you like to explain that, or do you want our interpretation?

Guitardian wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Guitardian wrote:That happened here on an army base a few months ago. Ergo they don't make you safer, they just make others more dangerous. If all the guns on an army base can't keep professional soldiers safe from one man on a crazy shooting spree, I don't know if it is at possible to be safe anyways. At least with gun restrictions, the shooting sprees would probably be less frequent. Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.

Do you honestly think that every soldier on every post is walking around with a loaded M4 in full kit 24/7? Wait a min, why am I even asking this... apparently you do. In which case you are YET AGAIN wrong.

Please, do some research before you open your mouth and remove all doubt that you don't have a clue as to what you are saying.

And as already pointed out by Fraz, the Muslim gak head targetted a reception center specifically because no one there was armed and he could cause mass casualties with little to no threat to himself. True to the Typical Muslim cowardly form of fighting.

Guitardian wrote:Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.

Bullets already cost more then gas. Doesn't stop me and millions of other Americans from buying them.

Okay man, I acknowledge I don't know all the details. I have however done "research" as far as having my brother on a military base many times, and having the MPs at the gate make sure I have all my I.D. and so on before we go in. They were armed. Of course I do not assume that everyone in the army has a gun at all times, because I've been around on base enough to realize that it's just an apartment complex and a dormitory for kids who aren't in college and instead are doing their next best option (other than McDonalds...) Most of those kids on a base are young, and have never fired a weapon in anger, just a mock of one, in training, or at a target to earn their marksmanship badge. They are there to train, not to be shot at. What the scenario that unfolded tells me is that one random person with a death wish and access to arms can cause a lot of damage, even in the security of a military base. The columbine kids got away with going on and on because they attacked a school where nobody was armed. The attack on a base went as long as he could but more armament got in the way, and MPs responded. I give the MP more credit than a high school security guard for handling a crisis situation like this, but in either scenario, a lot of people died because someone went haywire with a gun. No guns means no problem. Yes gun means it could happen anywhere, even places which are supposedly defended, secure. You think you can buy a gallon of bullets more for the price of a gallon of gas? Yeah I'm sure they are more expensive, but you miss the point... how much gas gets used compared to how many bullets? I'd rather just buy food personally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@jp400
If you want to make any more personal attacks instead of discussing the discussion you can feel free to PM me. Everyone else doesn't have to read you insulting me with silly oversimplifications. Insult me all you want just don't make it something everyone else has to read through. That's my last post on that matter (as I am taking my own advice here) and I will ignore any further personal insults from this point foreward unless in PM, in which case... game on.

Emphasis, mine.

Don't you mean no people no problem? Even If we get rid of guns people will still kill each other. They will just do it with knives or hammers or something else. Okay, well we get rid of those! Well now they are going to go find sticks and rocks, scratch them on a harder surface to form a point or find a big heavy one to hit someone with. Okay, well we get rid of those! Okay, so now they are just going to choke each other or keep kicking/punching until someone is dead. There is no way to prevent it. It is going to happen no matter what we do. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is just the tool. "Oh he shot his wife and the man she was cheating with. GUNS R THE BADZ!" No, He would of found a way to kill them anyways. The gun was just his tool. I'm not attacking you, this is just me trying to point out that your logic on the situation is flawed. One man with a gun can control 100 without one. If guns are illegal there will still be gun crime. You know why? Because the people that legally own guns aren't normally the ones that commit the crimes. It is the ones that obtain them illegally anyways. If we can't be armed then the guy that illegally attained the firearm is going to have even easier pickings.

JP400 is my hero. Couldn't have said it better myself, bro!

Frazzled wrote:
The terrorist targetted a reception center specifically because no one there was armed and he could cause mass casualties.

Wrong. The shooting began at Hassan's workplace, and terminated outside a nearby theater. There is no evidence that his choice was made on the basis of likely weapon distribution.

The problem with giving a hot woman a gun is that nobody in their right minds will be paying attention to the gun.

Fateweaver wrote:That is why gunmen target malls and schools. Gun free zones DON'T curb gun violence. It might not happen that day but if you piss someone off they'll just go home, get a gun and bring it to school the next day and even security can't stop them.

Had security been allowed guns at Columbine or VTech the shooters wouldn't have gotten off as many shots as they did. Hell, had other students who probably had guns at home or in their vehicle been allowed to have them in their locker or even on their person holstered, the shootings might have been less horrible.

Letting security bring guns to a school seems fine (We actually have security here because Columbine was practically next door).

Letting students? You're asking for a lot of dead students. I've seen plenty of fights at our school, and we're not a particularly violent one. Letting students carry weapons in any way into schools is a bad idea because it will allow fights to escalate to fatal levels.

Won't comment on anything else, but there's a difference between letting a 30 year old man have a gun in a restaurant and letting a 16 year old hormone charged and potentially suicidal male take a gun into a school with plenty of other 16 year old boys who are likely to rile him up and could also be carrying guns.

IIRC, Japan has the highest incidence of knife crime in the industrialized world. Yet, owning guns is almost impossible there. Hmmm

Using Hassan is a good example of someone who wouldn't be suspected of something wrong. He was (still is) a Major and wouldn't cause an MP to ask questions about him having a firearm on him. He had an FN 5ive7even, which is not standard issue but legal to buy, it has a 21 round capacity and the bullets have better penetrative capability than the average pistol round. He knew exactly what he was doing, going to the Mental Health center, knowing no one is going to be armed. Hopefully this donkey-cave gets the firing squad.

Stormrider wrote: He knew exactly what he was doing, going to the Mental Health center, knowing no one is going to be armed.

He worked at the Soldier Readiness Center. Again, there is no evidence which indicates that the target could only have been chosen because there were unlikely to be firearms present. If that is assumed to be the case Hassan may as well have chosen any other facility on the base, or a civilian structure, as in both cases weapons are unlikely to be present.

Dogma... Come on. The fact that you have no idea about what you're talking about is glaringly obvious. If you had ever spent time on a military base you would know this. There's a few places where weapons aren't likely to be, and the hospital is one of them. Honestly, what are you basing your posts on?