Gun Laws Debate - Chambersburg, PA

Discuss the national Gun Laws debate in Chambersburg, PA.

Does the US need to reform its gun laws?

Chambersburg thinks we need reform.
Yes
 
62
Not at all
 
45
Undecided
 
0

Vote now in Chambersburg:

Comments
1 - 20 of 2,366 Comments Last updated -
First Prev
of 119
Next Last
Really

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 23, 2012
 
High capacity magazines are not necessary.
pushedtofar

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 24, 2012
 
Harsher Laws will not make a difference when guns can be obtained without a background check and can be bought on the streets, not to mention that if you really want a gun stealing them is probably not that hard
Really Dumb

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 24, 2012
 
Really wrote:
High capacity magazines are not necessary.
It's not about necessity. Idiots like yourself believe that if we remove all the guns from the law abiding citizens that it will curve violence. Why don't you see how well thats working in Canada. The only people that have the guns are the criminals. Look how well that has worked out for Chicago. Over 255 murders this year already. Try focusing on statistics instead of knee jerk ideas.
Dan the Man

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 24, 2012
 
Really Dumb wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not about necessity. Idiots like yourself believe that if we remove all the guns from the law abiding citizens that it will curve violence. Why don't you see how well thats working in Canada. The only people that have the guns are the criminals. Look how well that has worked out for Chicago. Over 255 murders this year already. Try focusing on statistics instead of knee jerk ideas.
What? You think Canada has removed removed all guns from citizens?

Go educate yourself and come back when you know what you're talking about. Then maybe you can change your name to "Not Dumb."
Really Dumb

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 24, 2012
 
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
What? You think Canada has removed removed all guns from citizens?
Go educate yourself and come back when you know what you're talking about. Then maybe you can change your name to "Not Dumb."
And I thought I was Dumb. I never said that. Canadian Laws have curved law abiding citizens from buying guns. Also to have a handgun in Canada is almost unheard in most places unless you’re a criminal. They can ONLY have a rifle or a shotgun and limits possession of handguns to collectors, target shooters and those who can demonstrate a need of guns to protect their lives.(In most cases get denied).
Also you never mentioned Chicago's gun law. It's because you’re an ignorant troll who lies a lot on these postings by telling half truths. It's your way and you can't help it because you want people to think you’re smart and you hope that it will make you feel good about yourself.(Troll more please).
Dan the Man

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 24, 2012
 
Really Dumb wrote:
<quoted text>
And I thought I was Dumb. I never said that. Canadian Laws have curved law abiding citizens from buying guns. Also to have a handgun in Canada is almost unheard in most places unless you’re a criminal. They can ONLY have a rifle or a shotgun and limits possession of handguns to collectors, target shooters and those who can demonstrate a need of guns to protect their lives.(In most cases get denied).
Also you never mentioned Chicago's gun law. It's because you’re an ignorant troll who lies a lot on these postings by telling half truths. It's your way and you can't help it because you want people to think you’re smart and you hope that it will make you feel good about yourself.(Troll more please).
This is what you said:
Really Dumb wrote:
...if we remove all the guns from the law abiding citizens that it will curve violence. Why don't you see how well thats working in Canada.
Except that gun ownership in Canada is almost the same as the US. "All the guns" haven't been removed from law abiding citizens. That's what you said and that is a false statement. That's why I responded to your post - to correct your false statement.

BTW - I think the word you're looking for is "curbed."

curb
- verb
- to control, restrain, check

curve
- verb
- to bend in the form of a curve

You made this elementary mistake because you are REALLY dumb.
Dan the Man

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 24, 2012
 
Really Dumb wrote:
It's your way and you can't help it because you want people to think you’re smart and you hope that it will make you feel good about yourself.
Every time you post it makes me feel good about myself.

Because I'm not really dumb.

And you are.(As you repeatedly proclaim with every post.)
Really Dumb

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 24, 2012
 
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what you said:
<quoted text>
Except that gun ownership in Canada is almost the same as the US. "All the guns" haven't been removed from law abiding citizens. That's what you said and that is a false statement. That's why I responded to your post - to correct your false statement.
BTW - I think the word you're looking for is "curbed."
curb
- verb
- to control, restrain, check
curve
- verb
- to bend in the form of a curve
You made this elementary mistake because you are REALLY dumb.
More lies and more smoke and mirrors. Yet nothing from Chicago. This is what liars do. This is what dishonest people do.

It is not the same nor is it close. I can buy as many handguns as I like and I can buy an assult weapon or a SMG. This will not happen in Canada. Unless it is grandfathered. That is no where close to the United States.

Again more lies and more BS.
Really Dumb

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 24, 2012
 
WOW! That "Dan the Man" guy is so smart. Just ask him "He'll tell ya"
Dan the Man

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 24, 2012
 
Really Dumb wrote:
<quoted text>
More lies and more smoke and mirrors. Yet nothing from Chicago. This is what liars do. This is what dishonest people do.
It is not the same nor is it close. I can buy as many handguns as I like and I can buy an assult weapon or a SMG. This will not happen in Canada. Unless it is grandfathered. That is no where close to the United States.
Again more lies and more BS.
Claiming that Canada removed all guns from citizens was a false statement. I confronted your lie and now you're running from it.

Thanks for that. I always enjoy it when I corner a lying wingnut with the facts and they change the subject. It's your white flag of surrender. LOL!
BackatCha

Summerville, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 24, 2012
 
The first rule of gun safety should be: Everybody should carry a gun.

If there had been a half dozen armed "citizens" in the room, this idiot may have shot a few, but there would have been far fewer killed...and HE would have been one of them!!

People who truly believe that gun control should be the law of the land, would probably be the first to jump and scream the loudest, if the government decided that to reduce the 50+ thousand automobile deaths each year, we should:

Restrict automobile ownership to 21 years or older, with NO history of an alcohol related incident (lifetime),(physically) limit the maximum speed of all automobiles to 50 mph, ban the use of all telecommunications devices in a moving vehicle and enforce it..I could go on...

Also, when the Gun control advocates mention gun death numbers...they often..no always, fail to mention that of the 150,000 firearm related fatalities over a 5 YEAR period, all but 53,000 were accidental, or suicide. The true number of HOMICIDES was 53,000 in five years, so less that 33% of all gun deaths were homicides, Hummm FAR less than lets say highway deaths caused buy drunk drivers!!!(#'s available in WIKI, US crime stats and several other places).

Just to make a point to a neighbor, I once placed a loaded 9mm on a table in my living room for three days...it didn't kill anybody...

So in short, Guns and ammo don't kill people...people kill people....
Dan the Man

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 24, 2012
 
BackatCha wrote:
If there had been a half dozen armed "citizens" in the room, this idiot may have shot a few, but there would have been far fewer killed...and HE would have been one of them!!
Really? You would have taken the shot in a dark theater with the light from the screen flashing, people running everywhere, screaming, and the air full of teargas smoke?

And what if there were several armed citizens who decided they'd take the gunman out. Do you think there's any chance that, in the darkness and confusion, any of them would have shot each other?

Plus, Holmes had full body armor and a helmet. Even if you could have picked him out (instead of one of the other armed citizens) in the dark and smoke, in all likelihood your shot wouldn't have killed him.

Think this through. Consider the environment. Then tell me, in all seriousness that you think armed movie patrons would have made any difference? Be serious.
Dan the Man

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 24, 2012
 
BackatCha wrote:
Restrict automobile ownership to 21 years or older, with NO history of an alcohol related incident (lifetime),(physically) limit the maximum speed of all automobiles to 50 mph, ban the use of all telecommunications devices in a moving vehicle and enforce it..I could go on...
You bring up an interesting comparison.

We require cars to be registered with the state and all users to be licensed by the state. Every car carries a serial number that's against the law to tamper with. The state has the record of every single auto serial number and tracks them. They regulate the sale and purchase of vehicles. A policeman can stop you at any time and ask you to present your proof of ownership and license to operate a vehicle. There are over 99 CHAPTERS(!) of laws around the ownership and use of motor vehicles in PA.

You don't give all this regulation a second thought and nobody believes that, because cars are regulated, that the government is going to come seize all our vehicles.

People get drivers licenses, obey traffic signals, pull over when the police tell them to ... and everybody pretty much believes that they have freedom to drive and that owning a car is a sign of individual freedom.

So why not with guns? Why the fear that even having a DISCUSSION about regulating guns means that the government is going to come take our weapons?

Since: Nov 08

Ithaca, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 24, 2012
 
You don't have to kill somebody with a vest on. Shoot back and they'll still run. This guy quit and layed down before the cops even got there. He was in no shape to exchange rounds. First sign of return fire he would have been gone.

Since: Nov 08

Ithaca, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 24, 2012
 
Really wrote:
High capacity magazines are not necessary.
Either is alcohol, smoking, SUV's texting ,motorcycles ,swimming pools, fast food. All of which account for ohhh a million or so more deaths a year than hi-cap mags.
Dan the Man

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 24, 2012
 
shmodzilla wrote:
You don't have to kill somebody with a vest on. Shoot back and they'll still run. This guy quit and layed down before the cops even got there. He was in no shape to exchange rounds. First sign of return fire he would have been gone.
Back said he would have been killed. I disagreed. Sounds like you do too.

But, in all seriousness, in that environment, multiple shooters would not have done any good and most likely would have made things worse.

Since: Nov 08

Ithaca, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 24, 2012
 
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Back said he would have been killed. I disagreed. Sounds like you do too.
But, in all seriousness, in that environment, multiple shooters would not have done any good and most likely would have made things worse.
A free roaming man shooting anyone at will worse than potentially scaring him off? I'll take my chance fighting back. Would he have been killed? More than likely not , that's not necessarily your only option at defense.
Dan the Man

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jul 24, 2012
 
shmodzilla wrote:
<quoted text>
A free roaming man shooting anyone at will worse than potentially scaring him off? I'll take my chance fighting back. Would he have been killed? More than likely not , that's not necessarily your only option at defense.
More innocent movie patrons getting shot better than "potentially" scaring off the shooter?

Here's a scenario described by a blogger who had gotten handgun training from Greg Block in Huntington Beach, CA:

----------

But suppose for a moment that not one, but five people in that Aurora theater are packing concealed pistols. Suppose two of them are as skilled as Greg Block. That the other three just have average shooting skills, the kind that most gun-owners have.

No. 1 concealed carrier draws as soon as what's happening becomes obvious, prompting No. 2 to immediately draw and shoot No. 1, thinking he is in league with the killer.

No. 3 concealed carrier draws and gets off a couple of shots in the chaos, one bullet glancing off the helmet of the moving gunman, who turns his gun on No. 3, killing him and wounding the three theater patrons nearest him.

Meanwhile, No. 4, who has often rehearsed a scene of heroism before the full-length mirror on the door of his closet, eagerly draws his pistol and, raising it, finger on the trigger, promptly puts a round through the head of the person crouching right in front of him.

No. 5 has meanwhile maneuvered himself into a perfect place from which to shoot unobstructed. Just before he fires, a fleeing member of the audience bumps his gun and the first bullet goes wild. Re-aiming, his second shot strikes the gunman's bullet-resistant vest, knocking him down as if struck by a baseball bat.

While the gunman lies stunned, No. 5 approaches him. Just then, the first police officer comes down the aisle. Amid the screaming, chaotic, gas-choked theater, she sees No. 5 and tells him to drop his weapon. Confused, No. 5 turns to say he's one of the good guys and she fires four times, two of her bullets striking him in the chest, just as the gunman recovers enough to open fire again, his first target being her.

Is that outcome any more likely than the carefully aimed shot and salvation that Greg Block hints he could deliver?

Self-defense is, of course, a basic human right included in the nation's first founding document under life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But the idea that massacres will be prevented just by allowing more private guns in public places is a cowboy fantasy. Real life, real gunplay is a lot messier.

Since: Nov 08

Ithaca, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jul 24, 2012
 
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
More innocent movie patrons getting shot better than "potentially" scaring off the shooter?
Here's a scenario described by a blogger who had gotten handgun training from Greg Block in Huntington Beach, CA:
----------
But suppose for a moment that not one, but five people in that Aurora theater are packing concealed pistols. Suppose two of them are as skilled as Greg Block. That the other three just have average shooting skills, the kind that most gun-owners have.
No. 1 concealed carrier draws as soon as what's happening becomes obvious, prompting No. 2 to immediately draw and shoot No. 1, thinking he is in league with the killer.
No. 3 concealed carrier draws and gets off a couple of shots in the chaos, one bullet glancing off the helmet of the moving gunman, who turns his gun on No. 3, killing him and wounding the three theater patrons nearest him.
Meanwhile, No. 4, who has often rehearsed a scene of heroism before the full-length mirror on the door of his closet, eagerly draws his pistol and, raising it, finger on the trigger, promptly puts a round through the head of the person crouching right in front of him.
No. 5 has meanwhile maneuvered himself into a perfect place from which to shoot unobstructed. Just before he fires, a fleeing member of the audience bumps his gun and the first bullet goes wild. Re-aiming, his second shot strikes the gunman's bullet-resistant vest, knocking him down as if struck by a baseball bat.
While the gunman lies stunned, No. 5 approaches him. Just then, the first police officer comes down the aisle. Amid the screaming, chaotic, gas-choked theater, she sees No. 5 and tells him to drop his weapon. Confused, No. 5 turns to say he's one of the good guys and she fires four times, two of her bullets striking him in the chest, just as the gunman recovers enough to open fire again, his first target being her.
Is that outcome any more likely than the carefully aimed shot and salvation that Greg Block hints he could deliver?
Self-defense is, of course, a basic human right included in the nation's first founding document under life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But the idea that massacres will be prevented just by allowing more private guns in public places is a cowboy fantasy. Real life, real gunplay is a lot messier.
WOW Yea and what if one of them had a sword and one a grenade? Isn't there a chance he could have possibly thought of a more retarded and outrageous scenario? This guy should be writing for the next Batman movie. I'm not even going to entertain a response to the actual impossible scenario he dreamed up.
A 4 hour course doesn't make somebody an expert. As matter of fact people like that are far scarier to me because they THINK they are an trained expert.
and by the way I have been hunting and shooting for 5 years
I have 5 years in the Infantry
I had 9 months of almost constant exchange of mortar and gunfire in Iraq before I was shot by a sniper. Think who you might be speaking to before talking about REAL LIFE.

Since: Nov 08

Ithaca, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jul 24, 2012
 
Hunting and shooting for 35.. Laptops in large need of replacement

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 119
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

9 Users are viewing the Chambersburg Forum right now

Search the Chambersburg Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
PA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Pennsylva... (Oct '10) Mon Eddie Swindell 3,824
Best Dining In Chambersburg, Part three (Jan '12) Jul 27 Marko 1,072
Town hall summit to focus on drug overdoses sch... Jul 26 ALCOA 1
National Guard deploys for summer training next... Jul 21 lady 16
vince martz Jul 21 martz families 1
The arc of the moral universe is long… (Mar '13) Jul 18 Really 1,114
Outsiders are dreaming of ... Chambersburg? (Sep '08) Jul 16 Petal Power 30

Chambersburg Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]