The Terrorist Attack in Florida Will Insure that all the Gun Control Measures Currently Pending Will Pass (Orland: purchases, legal)

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

No it doesn't stand to reason as such because that would go against the heller ruining by scotus.

Nope. Dangerous weapon, not in common use.

The FBI says all rifles are used in less murders than fists or blunt objects.

Blunt objects are not used in more mass shootings.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Nope. Dangerous weapon, not in common use.



Blunt objects are not used in more mass shootings.

I guess statistics are wrong, the FBI is lying and your right. Plus you completly skip my other point about the media.

When you can make a salient point that actually adds to the discussions backed up by some sort of factual evidence the I will respond to you again. Unless I'm busy taking my 80 year old grandmother to her self defense martial arts class you think are appropriate for seniors to use as self defense.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Apologize to the victims. And for the love of God, please don't ever touch a firearm.

With that type of logic permeating your brain, you'll be making $16,000 a year for a long time.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

I guess statistics are wrong, the FBI is lying and your right.

You didn't hear about the mass shooting in Orlando? Or all the other ones where the guy used a semiautomatic rifle?

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

With that type of logic permeating your brain, you'll be making $16,000 a year for a long time.

Apparently people who think civilians need semiautomatic rifles can earn more than 16k, so I shouldn't have any problems at all making more than that.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Apparently people who think civilians need semiautomatic rifles can earn more than 16k, so I shouldn't have any problems at all making more than that.

No trust me, you're the type of guy who will miss the forest for the trees, I've read a lot of your postings on City-data. I don't foresee you having any career in tech in the Bay Area. You complain a lot, you spend way too much time on here (you know, instead of actually improving your situation) trolling and engaging in pointless debate about topics you know very little about.

There's a reason why you only make $16,000 a year and it's not because you're disadvantaged, it's because you are simply not intelligent enough to do more for yourself IMO. I say this as someone who has interviewed hundreds of people, and had to read who they were in a very short/limited time.

You fall into the category of "it's everyone else's fault besides the individual", you blame gun violence on the gun (instead of the individual), you blame housing prices and people's salaries on some unfair force that is oppressing you (instead of your lack of marketable skills).

You could prove me wrong, but I see you continuing to moan about it on City-data more instead of doing something about it in your real life.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

No trust me, you're the type of guy who will miss the forest for the trees, I've read a lot of your postings on City-data. I don't foresee you having any career in tech in the Bay Area.

lmao...I don't particularly want one, despite my vast knowledge regarding unix etc. It's just a hobby. Sometimes people are good at things that don't necessarily interest them in terms of a career. At times I've gone to interviews for tech jobs and done well, usually turning down the offer. One I wanted I didn't quite get, although they said they would hire me if I came back with a CCNA since my knowledge was impressive. These days I'm more interested in trying to get into the Merchant Marine. There's an expensive safety class involved in that, though.

There's a reason why you only make $16,000 a year and it's not because you're disadvantaged, it's because you are simply not intelligent enough to do more for yourself IMO.

Well, Johns Hopkins University disagrees with you. They offered for me to skip high school and attend their university as a freshman at the age of 14, after attending their program. Due to the combination of IQ score and CTBS score. They made that offer when I was 12. Other evidence includes my ASVAB score of 80 (max is 99) and being Qualified in Submarines, an intellectually rigorous certification requiring months of study and a board interview.

Believe it or not, I'm not into guns despite having military training on them and despite being a fairly intelligent person. Firearms were simply part of my job in the military. One can be familiar with them and not be a gun nut or even a conservative.

I have no problem with someone owning a semiauto pistol, or a pump action shotgun, or a bolt or lever action rifle. My issue is specifically with semiauto and full auto rifles. I don't feel as strongly about banning that particular type of weapon as I do about improving how we control who does and does not have access to firearms in general. I do think both are very important, but controls on people who have access to firearms is probably more important to me.

You would know that if you would calm down, show some maturity and read instead of applying cookie cutter responses to imaginary posts I did not write. Somebody dares to comment that civilians probably don't need X type of weapon and people like you seem to lose all rationality.

Extremist gun nuts like don't contribute to the solution to this problem. Really, the behavior they exhibit IS the problem. If we could somehow deny firearms to them, and instead have only responsible, mature individuals owning firearms, that would solve the problem.

[neutrino78x]

btw CaliRestoration, you do realize that I am not PermaBear, correct?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

lmao...I don't particularly want one, despite my vast knowledge regarding unix etc. It's just a hobby. Sometimes people are good at things that don't necessarily interest them in terms of a career. At times I've gone to interviews for tech jobs and done well, usually turning down the offer. One I wanted I didn't quite get, although they said they would hire me if I came back with a CCNA since my knowledge was impressive. These days I'm more interested in trying to get into the Merchant Marine. There's an expensive safety class involved in that, though.

Yes, a "UNIX" guru who makes $16,000 a year, living with 3 room mates in a 2 bedroom apartment is busy strolling around Silicon Valley turning down high salary job offers nonchalantly because, well, picking and choosing waiting for the "right" opportunity.

Tell me another story neutrino!

I have no problem with someone owning a semiauto pistol, or a pump action shotgun, or a bolt or lever action rifle. My issue is specifically with semiauto and full auto rifles. I don't feel as strongly about banning that particular type of weapon as I do about improving how we control who does and does not have access to firearms in general. I do think both are very important, but controls on people who have access to firearms is probably more important to me.

See this is what I don't get about your ideological stance. You claim that you want to ban semi-auto rifles to prevent more homicides. But the FBI and CDC show that rifles (of all types) are a minuscule percentage of homicides in the U.S (less than 1% of 1%). 285 homicides by rifle in 2013. Nearly 6,000 homicides by handgun.

So why aren't you advocating the banning of handguns if your stance is to prevent deaths?

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

So they claim. The FBI has no record of it. Regardless, see below.



The President wants to fix this part, but people like you are telling him it is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

I definitely agree with you that this man should not have had access to a firearm. But if you want that to be the case, you have to agree that there should be lists of people who can't legally get a firearm. For example if someone is being treated for depression they should be on that list. If they are on the no-fly list they should be on the no-gun list. If the FBI suspects them of terrorism they should be on that list until the FBI not only no longer suspects them, but has a good reason to think they are specifically not involved in terrorism (in other words they should stay on the list until we find a good reason to take them off, not take them off because we didn't find a good reason to suspect them).



I'm pretty sure he used a semiautomatic rifle.



The first part is doubtful. I think he was just a psycho who was claiming affiliation with ISIS and they gleefully accepted it after the fact. I doubt he had any communication with them.



I'm not calling for a ban on all guns right now. Just certain types of guns.

But eventually, right? You really are a tyrannical government's dream mouthpiece.