Cops Vs. AK-47 [13+]

Your comments don't make any sense to me. I am from a country (the Netherlands) that has very strict gun laws and I FEEL safe because of the fact that there are no guns around. The idea that any one who is pissed of at you could grab a gun (as there are so many around) and shoot you makes me feel unsafe. Except for a few criminals, hardly anyone gets shot here. And what's that stuff about oppressive government?
Try to look at 'problems' from multiple angles the next time!

we have strict gun laws here in canada but that doesn't hinder the ability of myself or anyone else here from buying an ilegal gun. so do stricter gun laws mean that the guns arent there? i think not.

You "believe" that there are no guns in your country? To believe that is to make your self a fool. If you were rich enough, no matter which country you are from, you get anything you want. Does your countries have strong anti-drug laws and are there still illegal drugs that are obtained within your countries borders? Do me a favor look into your local police arrest records and tell me how many people were arrested were carrying illegal weapons. Also tell me how long it takes from th moment you pick up the phone until the moment help arrives. Did you know that it ussually takes less than 2 mins to break into an average house and kill someone with a knife? Never give up your right to defend yourself!

We have very hard laws about fire arms, teh result only the outlaws have arms, in this year 67 people (35 were policemen) have been killed in my city, in drug related shhotings.

Here is the rest (stupid character limit ;)

Some don't understand guns and therefore are afraid of them. First let me cover some basic knowledge. The weapon used was no a true AK47. A true AK47 is capable of full automatic fire. The weapon used was semi-automatic only. You can here the pauses in the shots fired. By definition, it is not an "assault rifle". A true assualt rifle is, like a true AK47, capable of automatic fire. The weapon used shoots a 7.62x39 russian round. It is a weak round in comparison to modern weapons. It was developed in 1947 without all the knowledge of ballistics that we have now. Its stopping power and ballistics about equal a 30-30 Winchester. 30-30 Winchester is arguably the most popular deer hunting caliber in the United States. The AK type rifle used is highly inaccurate. It is difficult to sight in. If you can hold your shots on a man sized taget at 200M, you are shooting to its maximum accuracy potential. Some do not understand why a person would want such a weapon. This weapon is an adequate caliber for hunting big game on North America. Ammunition is generally cheap, so practice is not an issue. I personally know three people off the top of my head that own such a rifle. None have ever went on a shooting rampage or killed anyone with it. All have used said rifle at various shooting events. I guess that takes care of the "only made to kill people" arguement. If they were only made to kill people then my friends would have no use for one, which is clearly not the case.

Rifle like the one used in the shooting are used in National Competitions every year. There are literally thousands of owners that shoot in such competitions. Many are soldiers and police officers. People whom carry a gun for a living are more likely to hobby in guns. I can say that I am one of the fastest shooters in my unit because of my personal firearms practice. Soldiers that hobby in guns have better manipulation of firearms than soldiers whom only shoot to qualify a couple time a year. You can guess which soldier I would rather have next to me. American culture is synonomous with firearms. Some would say this is a tragedy. I say it has only made a stronger America. The police officer that shot the suspect in the video more than likely personally owned the weapon that he killed the perp with.

More to come when I get around to it ;)

I call you sir, out of respect. No doubt you have given more thought and have used more sound and logical reasoning than anyone else here, including me (whew, that was hard to say).

Keep your valuable and informative information coming.

PS: ever thought about running for the President of the US?

Take a wild guess why... fine I'll tell you, it's because the comments here are meant to be relatively consise and to the point.

an ak47 has both a semi auto and a full auto thats an assault rifle... how would you know if he simply just flicked the swith to semi?

there is no need to bear your own weapons as a defence in the current state of alert where no police officer walks the street with out a fire arm and a marksman only a few minutes away. then why own a lethal weapon. you will more then likely say it is your right as a human. i can defend my house with the stuff i have here i have no need for a gun nor can i legally own one till i turn 18 due to the laws here but then i won't get one because of the possibilities of an ND in some little kids head. i will be joining the RAF so i could get my hands on a TRUE assualt rifle please tell me i would lo9ve to have a decent debate on this site

"there is no need to bear your own weapons as a defence in the current state of alert where no police officer walks the street with out a fire arm and a marksman only a few minutes away."

This clip shows exactly why!

This was a courthouse with multiple armed bailifs and police officers close by and he STILL killed a bunch of people!

I don't know about you, but I'd hate to have been in a house near by that this whacko chose to enter and NOT have a rifle.

You may also want to reconsider this:

"i can defend my house with the stuff i have here "

You, I'm assuming you're in England, have no right to defense and, even should you avoid criminal charges, can and likely would be sued for everything you own should you hurt an intruder.

good video

good video

Our Constitution doesn't grant rights, it simply acknowledges them. Huge difference in terminology.

Perhaps its only semantics but I don’t understand your comment that "the Constitution doesn’t grant rights, it simply acknowledges them."

It’s my understanding that the first ten amendments of our Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. And, under our Constitution, as ratified by 2/3 of both the House and the Senate the first ten amendments of our Constitution are rights guaranteed to every citizen of the USA.

Am I missing something or misunderstanding what you said?

All people have certain rights. The right to defend oneself
for example. The Bill of Rights lists certain rights that the
government cannot take away from us.

Also, don't forget that the Second Amendment is the one
that guarantees all the others.

The Constirution does not grant rights. It simply admits that those rights both exist and supercede the Constitiution and the Government. You have a right to keep and bear arms to protect your self from criminals and from the government. The Constitution was written by men whose Government tried to deny them their rights. That is why they wrote it. AND that is why they went to war aqgainst that government to defend their rights. I should include that they defeated that government and constituted their own.

but too many cops and others got hurt too. I'll bet you are correct, there's probably in investigation about appropriate use of force or some crap by the officer who took this a-hole down. I don't see any of the anti-cop people bitching about them on this clip though! That's a good sign.

clearly all can see what needed to be done. 2 people murdered and now firing on police. certainly there will be an investigation into the shooting. the video says it all, it was a clean shoot.

If you have a class III then you already know how he got the weapon.
A) Crooked dealers,
B) Internet sales of conversion kits are at an all time high
C) The NAFTA deal gets the trucks in the US without inspection
D) my personal favorite, theft

The average automatic weapon in the hands of the average idiot, is more dangerous to the operator (and those close enough) than to the "target" The spray and pray philosophy (made popular by our Arab friends) is, in a tactical situation a waste of ammunition, and the most likely way to get killed in a firefight.
We need to train all officers in the art of battle, not the few, but all....

From your post I believe you must be one who aligns yourself with someone else who posted here about using a mop or broom handle to protect themselves.

If you want to think that all of us law-abiding gun owners are un-civil, that is okay, it's your right. But, there are also plenty of un-civil non-law-abiding humans out there who just love it when the civil population has no guns. If you want to tell the un-civil non-law-abiding gun-toting criminal he has to wait until the law enforcement gets to your house to defend you, that's okay.

Personally I'll be protecting my family with my gun until the law enforcement arrives. Because, if I wait until they arrive, they just might find me and my family dead by the un-civil gun-toting criminal who doesn't care about any law.

I hope I never have to, but if I do end up needing to use a gun to protect me and my family and I shoot a criminal in the process, I would much rather have to deal with a bit of misery due to shooting a criminal then to deal with the misery of my family being dead because I did nothing.

The AK-47 fires the 7.62x39. The M60 fires the 7.62x51 or better know as .308. Big difference in powder charge behind the slightly different .311" Dia. 7.62mm AK and .308" Dia. 7.62mm M60 rounds. The extra 12mm of case length allows for enough extra powder to propel the M60 round 600 feet per second (fps) faster than the AK round. 2400fps vs. 3000fps. The extra 600fps extends the effective range of the .308 to 800 meters vs. 300 to 400 meters for the AK round. Some professional shooters can even accurately and effectively shoot the .308 farther than 1000 meters. I've rounded off most of the numbers here but they should be pretty close. I don't have my books right here in front of me.

By the way, don't believe what you see in the movies. When a person gets hit by that 7.62 bullet regardless of which one it is, it doesn't pick you up and throw you back 10 feet. It goes through you. I won't go into the math and physical laws governing this, that's a whole different long drawn out topic, but please believe me on this one, if the bullet really created enough energy to toss the victim back like that, then the shooter would also get tossed back due to the recoil. If you go to gunboards.com you'll find loads of information on firearms, statistics, etc.

Have a nice day Muh

There ya go dispelling myths, setting the record straight in an intelligent manner. The population can't handle the truth.

I'm from Belgium and um there was a man who shot a burgular to 'protect himself and his family'. Guess what happened he got in prison a few years than after he was released he every day received threatments on the phone every minute he lived in fear under police protection of his life after he was released. Now he is looking to move to another country to start his life from zero.

It happens that children playing with their parents guns shoot themselves or go crazy and shoot their teachers and other children. Dont say it never will happen.

Now let's suppose your wife is depressed and she shoots herself with your gun. How are you goin to feel your whole life? It happens also when you she seems so so happy.

A gun will bring much more harm to your family than protection. Take other preventions install a security system or at least get a dog or someting. There a plenty of other ways.

I certainly won't ever claim issues as you have listed don't happen, they do. The man in your country who killed the burglar, did the burglar try to kill the man or his family? Was the deadly force applied by the man warranted? Was it legal in your country for the man to have the gun? Each instance of self-defence is different and the level of required protection from the crime must be judged accordingly. If the burglar is just stealing something and not posing a death threat then deadly self protection is not warranted. The laws here in the USA would also place the person in jail if deadly force was used and not warranted. Here in the USA if deadly force was warranted and the man did shoot the burglar, he would most likely not get all the harrasment as your case did. The man would most likely get plenty of support to deal with the fact that he had to shoot someone.

As for my family, my wife has her own gun and uses it as well as I do mine. My oldest daughter goes hunting with me. Along with owning a gun comes a great level of responsibility and respect for what it is capable of when used. Children should be trained early that guns are not toys and must be respected. Children have a high level of curiosity and that curiosity needs to be replaced with a high level of understanding why a gun is not a toy. When a child is small and cannot fully comprehend why a gun is not a toy, then the gun owner must be responsible enough keep the gun unaccessable to the child.

I have a 70lb dog who does a wonderful job letting us know when someone is outside our home or knocks at the door. But if a criminal with a gun who has no regard for life enters my home and sees a dog coming after him, he will shoot the dog. Then there am I standing with no way to protect myself or family if I don't have my gun.

Home security systems that the average person is able to afford can be bypassed and rendered ineffective. If a criminal is intent on killing, a security system won't stop them. It only takes a few seconds to shoot somebody and flee. The police are already several minutes behind by the time they respond to a security system if it worked. If the dog and security system didn't work, you had no gun and have been shot, you are dying, no one heard the shots, it could be days before anyone notices something is wrong.

We do clearly live in two different places with countrymen who view and respond to issues differently. I must quit typing now, this response is getting long.

Have a nice day bjk1903.

The man who shot the burgular was also a trained rifle user. He shot the burgular in his back several times when the burgular was fleeing. Now you'll say it's pretty logical he got in prison. But I suppose you are also a rifle user and you see em running away out of your house. Your rifle is nearby and you can shoot em if you want to. Dont say now 'I wouldnt shoot em'.

Let's suppose you bought yourself a new shotgun to 'protect your family'. You have a 5 year old son how are you going to teach that he cant touch that rifle? By saying 'hey you cant touch this rifle'. Now kids have that psychological bahaviour pattern to do what is inappropriate. And if you place it at an unaccessable place how are you going to use it yourself in an urgent situation you will lose time because you placed at a difficult place to reach.

Burgulars are not stupid let's say someone is planning for a burgular. Now which house is he going to select the house where a dog is present and where he has to possibly shoot and wake up the whole neighbourhood or the one without a dog? The one with a security system or the one without a security system? Only lettin houselights on are enough to let the criminal decide.

The bottom line is if it was restricted by the government to have guns for civils. You didnt have to protect your family from a man armed with a gun. It's because it's allowed to have guns there is the possibility for all that drama.

Good arguments you brought there but they couldnt change my point of view. But it doesnt mean I dont respect your opinion. I just think it would spare us from all that drama that a gun can bring.

In that case the man should have gotten prison, he would have gotten prison time here in the US too. The burglar was fleeing. At that point let them go and call the police. The mans life was not in jeapardy.

You are correct on the psycological behavior of children, this is why responsibility of the gun owner needs to be extensive. The curiosity of children needs to be replaced with understanding. My daughter has been hunting with me since she was 4. She knows full well why a gun is not a toy. My youngest is 3, she will start going with me next year if her level of comprehension is high enough. My home protection gun is placed so my little one can not get but I can in a matter of a few seconds.

You are right again on burglars not being stupid, although I would argue that simply deciding to be a burlar is a stupid decision and I think we would agree on that. Some states have legal conceal carry laws here in the US and some don't. Crime rates are lower in areas where citizens are allowed to have guns. Burglars will choose the place least likely to pose a threat to themselves.

If it was illegal for law abiding citizens to have guns here in the US, the criminals would still have them. Where there is someone willing to purchase (the criminal in this case) a market (black) will exsist. Guns have been part of US culture since the beginning. They're not going away.

The US isn't as bad as most media sources would have the world believe concerning guns. The main reason for me having my guns is hunting. The same gun I use for home protection also gets used for bird hunting.

I'm not trying to change your mind on guns. It is nice to be able to converse with others across our world and see other opinions and views. It helps us understand each other and also gives us new perspectives on how we view issues. It also helps us understand things from actual citizens across this world instead of from our biased media sources.

Thank you

Good points.

There are thousands of cases of people who protected their families, homes and others from criminals due to the right to have a weapon. And if they hadn't had that weapon then many of those same citizens may have well ended up on a statistics list of homicide victims.

Criminals will get the weapon regardless of whether it is illegal. That's why they are called criminals. Don't take away the right of the law abiding citizens to have a weapon of equal power to protect themselves from those who use guns for criminal purposes.

Maybe if one of those inocent bystanders had been carrying a concealed weapon the shooter in the video wouldn't have had a chance to kill and injure so many before the police could intervene.

will be having a bad day tomorrow and go out and do the same thing as that guy did. can you see the sense in your arugment? Arming people reduces gun deaths? Didn't seem to work here did it? He was armed as you would like him to be and what did he do? Did you notice the friendly guys in surge blue who are trained to respond to ppl shooting? They didnt fair too well did they. You are suggesting that Jonny Public (hero of the day) has a go?

Remember the other video of the Four guys and a gunman. Even in close quarters they couldn't overpower a determined assailant effectively enough to down him. No instead Jonny hero saw one man dead and another seriously injured. if they'd had a gun and not actually jumped on him but tried to fast draw him or what ever they'd have tried they may or may not have stopped him. he might have actually killed a few more, we will never know. Guns cause death simple. """"(:)@

You read a little too deep into my post. Not all should carry, not all want to carry, but for those who do want to and don't have a criminal background then they should be allowed to. As you correctly stated, this guy was determined, it didn't matter if he had the AK or not, he would have found a way to do what he did. He could have used a 12GA shot gun and done just as much or more damage. For all we know he may have been hit several times by the men in Blue. His determination completely overrode his sense of life. Even though possibly being shot several times he could go on until either shot lethally or he bled out. There are those who will flip-out and do stuff like this guy did. We don't know who will be next. Personally if I'm walking down a street with my family and someone opened up like he did and I got nowhere for me and my family hide, I'm going to shoot back, me and my family might be next as he's randomly shooting victims.

I have several friends who currently serve or have served on police forces here in the US. One in Detroit and two in San Diego. Others on the local force where I live. You would pop your eyes at some of the horror stories they have told me. Many of the police have no problem with civilians carrying concealed and in some cases wish more civilians did. The bystanders were already in visual range of this bad guy and fully aware of his position, one of them may have been able to easily take him down with a clean shot from the beginning. The police were coming into the situation blind not knowing his exact location. In the process of trying to locate him and take him out, many of the guys in blue took bullets.

If the law-abiding population is totally unarmed then the criminal reigns. The criminal will get the firearm or any other type of weapon if they want it irregardless of laws.

And again I respect your comments Teddy_bare, we just see things differently based on what we see, read and of our own personal experinces.

Semi-auto AK-47's are not illegal in the USA. Even when the Clinton so-called gun ban was in effect they were still legal to buy. The Clinton assult gun and high capacity magazine ban was nothing but a way to try and make himself look good to the anti-gun liberlal tree huggers. I could have legally purchased an AK-47 anytime during those years.

Yes, a gun ban would create a huge black market for the criminals. It would most likley bring in even worse weapons too.

Yes, I agree with you on the caliber it is low power in comparison to most rifle cartidges.

This guy went nuts due to his wife divorcing him. That's no excuse for what he did.

I've been telling people all along that he could have done the same thing or worse with a 12GA.

know that you can have the semi autos( i meant to put that part in but forgot) just not the full auto. Im still not realy sure why everyone fears the AK the most though out of any gun.

some of that fear is generated due to videos such as this one. Then when the media gets a hold of it they hype it up as much as possible because it was an AK-47 variant weapon. As determined as this guy was to kill he could have easily done the same with a 12GA.

Have a good weekend AgentJ.

So imagine in your world everyone is armed. Since 1 in 3 marriages fails that puts alot of armed ppl in a position to repeat what this guy did. Of course i am reasonable so i wont suggest that every pissed off divorcee would respond in the same way, but even if a faction did it would certainly make th News.

i hope your marriage is solid. """"(:)@

And my wife knows how to use the guns as well as I do.
And my daughter went hunting with me this last spring.

But the issue is this guy who flipped his lid. Even in a divorce most sound people wouldn't resort to this extreme as you have reasoned and we agree on.

The police were responding blindly to an attack which was already in progress. If even only one bystander already there had been carrying, when people started getting mowed down by the bad guy, the bystander possibly could have ended it before so many died and got injured. I'm certainly not saying people should start being cowboys and charge into the battle, the first response should be to find cover. But obviously not everyone was able to outrun his bullets.

Even if only the military and police were allowed to have guns the criminal and someone determined enough to have one could figure out how to get it. And, guns aren't that hard to manufacture. Anybody with a limited knowledge of mechanics and machines can make a gun.

Good points. Can't remember exactly, but I think the term "Assult Rifle" was invented during WWII and was used to descride small light caliber fully automatic weapons.

Your right on the criminal fearing the thought that the victim may have a weapon to use. All you have to do is read reports of interviews with criminals in prisons. They themselves say that they would reconsider commiting the crime if they knew the victim was going to be armed. Guns are a deterent. If the criminal knows he has nothing to fear he'll commit the crimes all day long.

You need to read up on per capita statistics.

You need to read up on some reliable statistics.

you need to stop making shit up and actualy look at the real statistics.

The n00binator has been rather quiet. He must be conversing with his chatroom buddies on a response.

I hate to say it, but I may have to give up posting on this video. It's just getting way too long with over 600 post. It's taking too much time to sift through it looking for the latest responses and blunders. I'm spending so much time on this one that I'm missing out on some laughs over the newer videos.

I'll finish this run and I might check back on occasion.

Have fun

who keep comparing everyday objects with guns, here the NUMBER ONE KILLER OF PEOPLE




DEATH. sounds silly eh? Like you lame assed comparisons. """"(:)@

good point there Teddy_bare.

I guess if your willing to try to use your broom to fight off a criminal holding a 9mm while waiting for the police to show up, have at it.

My 12GA will do just fine, Thank you. An if needed, my 9mm, .32, .38, .22, .44mag, what-ever it takes to put the criminal down before he takes me or my family out.

would u actualy depend on cops to defend you. Think about it, when you call them it takes at least on average of 5 minutes to get to the scene. You could have already been attacked by then. Heres some advice, grow some balls and learn to defend yourself and stop saying shit about people that actualy care about living.

stated nicely

did you happen to know every cop has the choice to carry a high power rifle in the trunk of their cruiser all they have to do is qualify with it did you study the facts before you opened your fat trap.do your homework next time

either not many cops (well at least in that incident) can not pass the test to get the rifle, or cops don't believe violence interaction is necessary.

just a thought """(:)@

Gun shows are big in Florida. For those who want to visit Florida. The Gov. just sign a new law it is call "Shoot First Law"...I love it. Check the criminal rate in Florida and compare with Non-Gun States and Country. We have lots of rapist. But with that law...only the stupid will take risk. Can wait for USA to become the OLD F** West. Once again...no country in the world will try to mess with us. And if they do...**chi chin**

Each major city in America has more deaths by gunfire than the whole of Great Britain. Only a few of our police carry guns and no citizen {including the police} can keep a handgun or rifle in their homes.
How many Americans are killed with their own gun?

Seriously Guns are illegal in Great Britain. That is an idiotic comparison. The percentage of murders commited in london with knives far exceed those in the NYC. The murder rates are comparable. Outlawing guns will ensure one thing. Only outlaws will have guns (which is the case in great britian) leaving good innocent clivilans helpless to protect themselves.

Making more gun laws, banning guns wont solve the issue, it isn't even a step in the right direction. The issue is murder and murder will ensue with or without guns with or without laws. The way you solve that is good communities with good parents that raise good children.

We've got strict gun laws and we have no where near as many murders as the U.S per capita. That is a fair comparisson. I live in Toronto and there have been some recent gun related crimes but nowhere near as much per capita as you get in New York or Detroit or Los Angelas. The truth is that strict gun laws do help in reducing murders and it's been proven here in Canada.

Canada has 10 million registered guns, which amounts to 1 in 3 Canadians who have guns. This is more than Americans per capita. This also proves how our strict gun laws work in reducing crime.

I live in Canada and our gun laws are a hell of a lot more strict, which has resulted in a hell of a lot less crime and deaths. Why would a homeowner need an assault rifle to protect his/her family??? I must also say that there are 10 million registered guns in Canada, that's 1 in 3 Candians who have guns but the difference is that not anyone with a license can buy a gun and they aren't available in every other store you go to. Only the people who know how to handle them get a hold of them... however I still don't support having guns as a hobby.

Guns don't kill you idiot.

Just because Coolsam's right doesn't give you the right to blast him with your idiotic comments.

having guns at home dont mean a decrease in voilence, if ur forgetting this man had a gun at his home and used it in RAGE to shoot in to the court house...ppls lives were lost because he had a gun.

If ownership of guns increases violence, can you explain why Switzerland, in which every person over age 18 owns an automatic weapon and is trained in how to use it, has the lowest rate of violent crime in the world?

I didn't think you could.

The ownership of automatic weapons in Iraq is nearly 100% .they are trained before birth and they have the highest level of violent crime in the world. Explain that.. ... ... ... i didn't think you could

Switerland has avoided major conflicts for many years, maybe in Switerland the ethos of violence isnt in there pyscy.

not a good conparsion. try again """""(:)@

the people who own the guns. There's a difference in an immature ignorant person owning a gun and a mature educated person with a gun. I leave it up to you to decide which country has the more mature population - Switzerland or America.

my family lives in Switzerland, and none of my cousins or uncle's or grandfathers have a automatic gun. It's not that there is less violence because they have guns, it's because in Switzerland everyone has enough space for him/herself so that you won't get frustrated. Same as in Australia, the less people on 1 square mile, the less people get killed

what do you need a ak47 for.this is a fact. in usa is more people murded by hand guns and assult rifle then entire western europe.you are about 280 billion people or more. in western europe ( great britan ,france , germany and similar countrys) is about 370 billion people. yust a fraction is murded by handguns and assult rifle. compared with usa. i`m not against guns,but i cant go to a gunshop in my country and by a ak47. you americans have lot to learn about gun controll.ak47 have only one purpose. it is to kill humans. i have 7 rifles myself all for hunting.if i want a new gun or rifle im must ask promission from police,be registre in a organisesion for guncontroll.have a hunting licens and maybe then i can get a new gun.

I have 25 guns of various calibers and configurations. Never shot anyone and hope I never have to. The Ak-47 variant used in this shoot-out was semi-automatic and the caliber is sufficient for use in deer hunting. The 7.62x39 round used in the AK-47 is week ny todays standards.

An assult rifle is a small caliber fully automatic weapon.

By the way, you may want to check your population numbers an statistics.

Scroll up and read some of the UK murder statistics in earlier post. You will quite surprised.

If I need to go buy a firearm, I go buy it. Don't need the license, police okay, permission, membership, etc.

Only checks needed are to make sure I don't already have a criminal background. And that's only in the case of handguns or a brand new gun.

It works like this: The people who go on rampages like this simply beak gun laws. It doesn't matter how many laws there are; they'll break them.

However, the good people who don't go killing others follow the gun laws. Therefore, the more gun laws there are, the harder it will be for good people to get them.

Want to reduce crime? Make it a law requiring every law-abiding citizen to own and carry a gun. Criminals may attack people they know are defenceless, but would they attack someone if they knew they were armed?

That criminal (previously a responsible AK47 owner) wasn't deterred by the loads of Armed Police officers shooting at him.
in fact he was better prepared to commit a crime by his god given right to bear arms. Was he a well equipted milita? Well sort of a one man army. Was he fighting a bad govt? well sort of cos they wanted to take away his freedom of expression. Being to kill his wife and son.

i say arm all american and defend yourselfs to the death. """(:)@
maybe the british will come back to sort out the quarrelsome colony!

Spoken like a true vassal.

why the people should be allowed to carry guns. If the bystanders had had guns they could have taken the bad guy out and reduced the number of deaths and injuries before the police even got on the seen.

You'll never convince peope like Glosphil and rkingofspades that you are right and they are wrong. Thankfully, I like in the US and I can own a gun if I choose to. I feel sadness for those who do not have the same rights as I do; I feel even sadder that they do not even want them.

The police in the US are here for our protection, but what people do not realize is that the police cannot be everywhere all of the time. The police respond to CRIMES THAT HAVE ALREADY OCCURED OR ARE OCCURING. Therefore, it does not make sense to put all of your faith for your personal safety in the hands of the police; you need to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

The murder rate is 5.7 times higher in the US than England and Wales and the rape rate isabout three times higher.

Firearms were used in 68% of murders in the US compared with 7% in England and Wales, and in 41% of robberies in America against 5% in England and Wales.

UK figures for killing by guns include suicides and accidents nit just killings.

How many people in the US are killed with their own guns? How many chikdren kill themselves with guns belonging to parents or relatives?

I've been living in 4 different cities in 3 different countries in Europe (appart of all the ones i've visited worldwide) and i've never had a gun, i've never needed one either, don't feel sadness for me but for yourself that need one gun to feel safe...
(by the way, just to keep on the safe side, do you always carry a gun? when going to work or to the bar? and your sons when going to school? and when you go on holidays to the beach? or you only worry that someone comes to your place but nothing is ever gonna happen on the streets... so where is the limit?)

And latest Home Office figures show that the number of firearms offences in Wales - excluding air weapons offences - have risen from 106 in 2001-02 to 288 in 2004-05.
"At the moment the sentencing system is so lenient that it's becoming increasingly worthwhile for criminals to carry guns.
Weapons including knives, clubs, firearms, stones and glasses or bottles were used in 24% of violent incidents in 2004-05, compared with 21% the previous year.
One in 10 Britons have been affected by gun crime or know someone else who has been in the past five years, a survey shows. LOL take guns away and they find diff kinds of weapons.

"Firarms offences" figures include any crime involving any type of gun. A gun does not have to be fired, or even pointed at some-one. A man carrying a realistic model of a gun in the street (illegal in the UK) would be included in these figures. Some-one found to have an gun (even without bullets) is also included.

not all people with guns are raging fucking lunatics

i guess he must have been responsible at one point in his life. 1 in 5 ppl will suffer a mental health issue in their life. He probably shot the other 4 normal ones."""""(:)@

(nothing new there) but I don't think you can legally get an AK-47 here in the US. I'm pretty sure that is one of the weapons they actually managed to get banned. A lot of good it did these poor people, but at least it's not something anyone can get easily. Someone let me know if I am incorrect.

it's legal to own an ak-47 in U.S. but you have to get the civilian model (*without auto mode). of course you can get the parts to turn it into auto :)

pull the trigger really fast

Like I said - I've been wrong before, I'm sure I will be again. Thanks for the correction.

and he fucked up a few peoples lifes. """(:)@

are u taliban.

OUR LAWS WERE SET TO PROTECT THE POPULATION FROM A RUN-AWAY GOVERNMENT.

GEEE ... I WONDER WHAT GOVERNMENT THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT WHEN THEY CAME UP WITH THAT?

Governments do. Disarm all the worlds governments first!

muslims still

al queda, islamic jihad, hamas.... then there's iran, syria, somalia.... too many too list! Do your own research or simply see "peely's" post for the big picture.

it happens in terrorist countries every day so stfu

Guns dont kill people. People kill people

What was an assault rifle created to do? Kill People! I think people should only be allowed to have hunting guns for sport or at least have a really strict gun registry program rather than allowing anyone with a license to buy a firearm. Seriously, a country with lenient gun laws shouldn't expect any less.

Again, it goes back to intended purpose and how deadly is it. A car in not INTENDED to kill things. Guns are. I'm not saying ban all guns, but can we at least have a little logic in the "gun control" arena. Average people don't need access to military type weaponry!!!

access to the same or more level of firepower as their government has if they want to stay free. Check Switzerland.

then we can all own cruise missiles and fast jets. we need not defend ourselves against those sworn to help us

Gimme a tank!

NOw how would you feel if I thought we should ship all dumb asses to Antartica. You would have to pack your parka, cause it is cold down there.

A country that allows dumb asses like you to roam and probably breed (lets hope not) shouldn't expect any less.

Read up on the facts, before you print stupid shit,

He is only expressing his opinion, which is his right. You have the right to provide a rebuttal. You do not have a right to insult him or anyone else for their opinions. Nor is it necessary to call anyone a "dumb a s s". Nor is it necessary to use profanity.

If you have anything to say or to add to this site, please make it meaningful or useful or insightful.

You try to argue on the topic at hand rather than talking absolute nonsense? How am I a "dumb ass"? What's wrong with a registry program? Would it be taking away your right to own a gun? NO! Unless of course you don't know how to use one or you have one illegally, in which case you wouldn't deserve to own one either.

coolsam

you should spend some time and read up on the history stuff.

thoughout history, the primary way to control the population is to take their guns away from them. with the registry you refer to, how long do you think it will be before that registry is used to do so??

Pop your head out man. Or are you just another blinded by the light lemming???

Canada's had a registry for years now and the number of gun owners are on the rise. It's currently over 10 million. what do you have to say about that.... NOTHING!? I thought so. Before you reply, please read a book or do some research.

i thought one of the amendments was freedom of speech. you sound like you want to start deporting people for dissing govt policy. The same govt that you are allow to bear arms against if they ever fall out of favour. that one will bite you in the ass one day. """"(:)@

why don't all the agents of the government give up thiers first?

Austrailia is turning into a shithole police state faster than the USA. Enjoy every bit of slavery and oppression you get sheeple.

with Big, that's a nice new word. I also thought it was some kind of typo.

Thanks

The logic used now is not to defend the country, but "self defence."
Unfortunately, groups like the NRA have a stranglehold on the US govt. If people need a gun for self defence, why do they need high- powered, high- caliber weapons? Gun controll is possible WITHOUT changing the Constitution. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This was written when the "arms" were muzzle loading long guns - not even rifled. It doesn't say "the right to bear assault rifles" or the like, just "arms." That can easily mean hanguns, single-shot hunting rifles, or shotguns. Also, note the term "well regulated." To me that means each and every person who wants a gun should be forced to take full training classes on shooting and safety. And don't give me crap about the crooks being the only ones to have guns. If noone can legally buy these weapons, the gun makers will stop making them.

what you guys don't see is that there are millions of people that own guns and never have anything bad happen. Responsible people that take care in protecting them from bad people/children. You all just see what happends when guns get into the wrong hands. Don't let the government take away another freedom because of the 1 percent of the population that have problems, and use guns in this fashion. The rest of us have no problems using guns for recreation and hunting with out ever having that type of thought enter our minds.

If so, why? It is completely unneccessary. Once again, my point was obscured. I never said "take away all guns." I said there should be a common sense limit to what types of weapons common people can legally get. No one needs an assault rifle for any reason. I want to own a tank and drive it through the woods shooting crap for the hell of it, but I'm not allowed. It's the same thing, on a bigger scale.

""""(:)@

you are calling Chenney "responsible!!?"

""""(:)@

It does not mean muzzle loading rifles only. Those were the assault rifles of the day, and the ones we have are no diferent just new advancements. Does the 1st amendment mean just quill pens and the printing press.

the ammendment was intended for the protection FROM the government. It is the watering down and the pacification of the masses to the point where the general population is believing that they are safe from thier government. It is the wellfare mentality that it is the government's job to provide for us that makes us turn against each other. You see, everything has a life cycle. Even societies. Perhaps ours will be hundreds of years from now. But it might not be that far fetched of a prediction to say that when it happens the American people will be powerless to stop it. As far as the comparison to muskets, that's when the government also had muskets. But eventually it'll happen. The masses will be pacified with their cable channels, thier iPods and whatever it is that the obsese over. We'll give up more an more of our freedoms until it's too late.

Look what they did with smoking. And I'm not a smoker. But first they said no more smoking on flights within the US. "But don't worry, you can still smoke in the airport and on inter continental flights. The they took those away. Then it's smoking in public places and back east it's reached to peoples private property. Our children will think we're crazy when we tell them you could smoke in a McDonalds after a meal "way back when". it's a slow process. but effective.

And as long as we get our MTV and Dallas Cowboys, we'll smile all they way to the end.

I kept getting side tracked responding to some a-hole (aka malibuyou). Anywho, I do see your point about the govt. etc. I'm not sure I completely agree with it in this case, but you are definately right about the smoking thing. I don't smoke wither, but it has gotten to the point where people can't even smoke in private anymore. There is a school where I used to work that had a rule that the staff could only smoke in their cars, with the windows up. You've given me something to think about. I still think that some weapons are just not needed by average people. There are thousands of responsible gun owners out there, but certain weapons in the hands of even a single loony can do so much damage.

nice disertation and some good points.. however.. smoking.. and guns?.. no one has the right to infringe upon another persons right to breathe clean air.. i dont need a bill of rights to tell me that.. cigarette smoke is laden with more chemicals than most peoples iqs... not to mention smoke particles are actually a solid substance being exhaled from a persons lungs...along with viral enti ties attached to those smoke particles...

You don't have to spell out how sick smoking is to me. I could write ten pages on the ignorance of slowly killing oneself. Especially due to something that 99% of people did so that they could "look cool" or whatever. The comparison does not liken cigarettes to guns. In fact, it's not really comparison. It's a prediction, if you will. That the same TACTICS are in place and shall continue until a time in which no citizen will legally be allowed to own a weapon. This might take a great deal of time. The UN is meeting in New York discussing a Global Ban. It will happen. And then, oh yes, when the time comes that the masses have are completely helpless to resist, then the power structures will move at will to "ensure the safety".
As far as cigarettes ..... they're just nasty. And if there wasn't so much money tobacco for the government, they'd have banned them already as toxic substance.

good reply miles.. ive seen a few other posts you have AFTER i read this... you appear to be a well - read person .. if not at least someone capable of expressing an opinion in an intelligent manner... of course as many other folks will say.. if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.. there are many firearms in the hands of criminals that would certainly NOT be voluntarily turned in.. c ya

I try to engage an idea from the stand point of not only expressing it but putting it out there for others to challenge or enhance. Either way I have found that more often then not I am able to refine or redefine my perceptions.
With regards to your statement about criminal still having guns even if there were to be a ban set in place: I have considered the idea for quite a while. I've thrown around the idea in either novel form or the form of a screenplay with the premise of a ban on weapons and the government moving on people to "take control" and since "law abiding" citizens have no weapons the heroes of the story line would be.. well.. criminals and militia groups that are generally considered lunatics by our current population. How ironic would that be. Having to turn to those for our protection against a tyranical government.

read a few books and learn history. Free people are armed, and after they are disarmed they become slaves.

you read my mind exactly

then you need a high-power rifle and/or bullets to 'counter' the bullet-proof vests

Or get a good sniper and pop their skulls for them.

I couldn't agree more. Here in Canada we've got a pretty strong gun registry where every gun owner has register their firearm with the government, not a firearm association. Purchasing guns here isn't as easy as going to your local Wal-Mart or any other store and giving them I.D to buy a gun. Call us pussies if you wish but we just don't see the point in regular people carrying assault rifles, which is why they are illegal here. We just don't see why a homeowner would require an assault rifle to protect his/her family. This doesn't mean that Canadians don't have guns, quite the opposite actually, there are 10 million registered guns which amounts to 1 in 3 Canadians who own a firearm. The difference is that the majority of people who purchase weapons here go through the government process of registering it and following proper laws and training. This keeps people who have no knowledge about guns away from such dangerous weapons... however there are obviously violent people like gang members who get their guns illegally and go on killing innocent people but this number is quite minimal. I'm sure these rules can work for Americans as well since it's not like Americans would have to give up their gun- loving culture, it would simply take guns away from those who don't know how to use them or take care of them.

It doesn't matter if you are registered or had classes on how to shoot if you've flipped your lid and want to kill somebody. Being registered wouldn't have stopped this guy. Even if he couldn't have owned an AK-47 he would have just used a regular hunting rifle or a shot gun or what-ever he could get his hands on. He didn't care about life anymore and was going to kill anyway he could. He just happened to be using an AK. The AK shoots the 7.62x39 round, a low powered round in the high powered caliber world. This was close range, he could have done the same damage with a shot gun.

I guess the point of this post is that being registered or not being able to get ahold of a semi-auto AK-47 would not have stopped this guy or others like him. He may have never broke a law in his life before he did this. Registration can't tell what someone will do in the future.

Please don't take this as a negative to Canadians either, I have plenty of Canadian friends. Sometimes we just don't see things quite the same.

I agree that when a lunatic wants to kill he/she'll find a way but I think if you create a process in which it makes it more difficult for anyone to get a gun, this will limit the number of people with guns who don't know how to handle it. I mean this guy is a pretty rare case but with a registry there are less people like him who would be able to own a gun though the registry program. A lot of people don't like the registry because they feel it will take away their guns but that's not the case since here in Canada we've had the registry for a few years now and gun ownership is on the rise to over 10 million. It's true that people can be unpredictable no matter what rules or laws are in place but at least things like the registry can limit some of the wackos from owning a gun. Then again, I just read that the U.S actually has harsher punishments for gun related crimes than Canada so I guess sometimes strong laws aren't a deterrent. Maybe the stereotype of Canadians just being more polite is true... ;-)

Sometimes I still think the punishment for gun crimes in the USA are too easy. Many cases don't even get prosocuted to the fullest extent the law allows. We've got too many easy judges taking it upon themselves to re-write the laws how they see fit.

We do have gun registration on hand guns and it is illegal to have a hand gun with-out it being registered. When purchasing a new rifle or shotgun a background check is performed by the seller to make sure the buyer doesn't already have a criminal background prohibiting them from buying a firearm.

But as many of us have already stated, this guy would have used anything he could get his hands on. He could have easily done the same damage with a 12GA loaded with buck shot.

I must admit, for the most part you guys to the north are pretty polite.

Have a good one Coolsam

Check your basic economics you moron.
By mkaing them illegal, you would create a blackmarket and the prices would sky rocket.

Look at drugs like pot and coke.

Get a brain you shit head.

guns are not like drugs. Not everyone can build an AK-47 in their basement. If the factories don't produce certain (not all, mind you, just certain) types of weapons except for the express use of military and law enforcement, the number of them available will diminish. As the police round up what weapons are out there, new ones will not be available. Sure there will be a black market, but the high prices will keep them out of the hands of people like the dimwit in this video at least.

and not every person can cook up a batch of meth!!

You are proof there needs to be more strict laws on birth control!!

to set up a meth lab. The equipment is readily available to do so. How easy would it be to get, say, a smelting operation going to produce the metal components to create a gun. If it could easily be done, the criminals would already be doing it to keep their weapons untraceable. And since I've heard enough insults out of you for expressing my opinions (which you fail to comprehend anyway) I can only conclude that you are the result of a load that should've been swallowed.

comments by malibuyou -- $0. rebuttal by printeman -- priceless. how about not responding to him? it's clear that he's gunning (no pun intended) to get a rise out of people. let's punish him by ignoring him.

and aussie candy ass. the first thing hitler did to gain control of germany was disarm the citizenry. it is not only our right to own guns, it is our responsibility. while it is sad that incidents like this occur, if our nation had not grown so afraid of guns, any one of a number of citizens could have quickly stepped in and possibly saved many lives. furthermore, many things have been illegalized here, such as controlled substances. but that has not made them any more difficult to obtain. per the old adage, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"...

• In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

• In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.

Sounds like the UK is where the USA doesn't want to be. The honest civilian has no right to protect themselves from harm and death in their own home or when minding their own business. When the honest civilian does try to protect themselvs from getting killed by the criminal, the honest person ends up with the worst possible penalty and the criminal gets a slap on the hand with financial assistance to further persue the honest law abiding civilian. The criminals have more rights than the person just trying to live his life.

And for those who will say the civilians in the UK who used the weapons to protect themselves from the criminals were breaking the law by having them, the above posted examples by Careerman70 are exactly why we here in the USA fight so hard to keep our right to own guns. So we don't end up in jail for protecting our families from criminals who choose to do bad things. Here in the USA the man on the subway, the English homeowner and the Norfolk farmer would have been able to go home instead of rotting in prison for the rest of their lives for defending themselves from criminals.

exactly the kind of people that are trying to take away our rights. Iv heard some realy idiotic people here. When you reply with something right they reply with something else that dosnt even make sense to the subject. Guns will always be in the hands of criminals, even if you somehow find a way to destroy them all, guns in a primitive form arnt that hard to make, they can be easily made by criminals. Now with that id rather be living than bitching about how guns are evil cause they arnt, people are.

3 incidents in HOW MANY YEARS?????

Newsflash 6 ppl shot dead in New Orleans yesterday. """"(:)@

DOESN'T MATTER TO THE PPL IN PRISON FOR PROTECTING THEIR FAMILY!

Why do you think it is so easy to research? it's because it doesn't happen here that often and when it does it makes big headlines. have Americans become so immune to the daily violence that it doesn't now make headlines? """""(:)@

yes.

yes Australia has tightened it's gun laws. But we never had a "right to bare arms"? We had loosened gun control laws but not a constitutional right to bare them.

There can be no good without evil, you think you can control the free sprit of humans, and then you’re an idiot. No matter what you do if someone wants to kill they will. So what is your goal? These numbers are just made up for the point. Say killings happen 1000 a day. And you change the law make guns outlawed. So now we kill only 500 a day (4-now) so do you feel happy that 500 our dead and not 1000? A gun is just an easy way to kill. People kill with knifes, clubs, poison, water, rope, and on and on. So say we got rid of every gun in world what’s next? On the list? Where do you stop? How many death by other means is too many to start outlawing all knifes? Is their a death percent that is acceptable?

make guns illegal, then they use knifes, make all knifes illegal? then they use clubs, make all trees and clubs illegal? how about like all thinks in life you take the good with the bad and kill the evil every chance you get.

LONDON, England -- Campaigners are stepping up pressure for a violent video game to be banned after it was blamed for the horrific murder of a 14-year-old British boy by an older friend.

The game, Manhunt, is described by its promoters as a "sado asochistic" game in which players gain extra points depending on the viciousness of their killings.
Warren Leblanc faces a life sentence for repeatedly battering Stefan Pakeerah with a claw hammer and stabbing him to death after luring him to a local park in Leicester, in the English Midlands.

The 17-year-old pleaded guilty to murder at Leicester Crown Court Wednesday.
Britain's Daily Mail Thursday carried a front page headline: "Murder by Playstation" and another saying: "Horror images on computer drove teenager to kill his friend aged 14."

See, here is one of thousands of examples of what is happening in a country were guns are outlawed. As you said Kelly63, guns kill, knives kill, clubs kill, etc.

There were several groups that tried this in the US many years ago, but they blamed music and movies. What a buch of BS!! BTW - that murder sounds similar to one shown on a CSI episode. Maybe we should ban that too, eh?

I'm not flaming you, but that story makes my blood boil. What was reported in the papers was an absolute pack of fucking lies. There was and is no evidence whatsoever that murder was caused by the game. None. Not even a little bit. Bloody tabloids. Rant over.

If you out law guns, only outlaws would have guns, what about all the reports you never see about the people who have used gun for self defense and saved many life’s? What if cops had no guns? How would they stop these types of people? Say this is the gun fault is like saying if you misspell a word it’s the pencil fault, your logic is cracked and I sign of a coward and a loser. I guess you would never defend yourself or your family; you would just let them kill your wife and kids.

since you brought up spelling... what's an "idoit?" Sorry, couldn't help it.

It works in Europe. For example, in London, the cops doesn't have guns. Very few people are shot there compared to the US.

In Denmark there are around 30 homicides yearly with the use of guns. This is with a population of 5.5 Mio.

If we can, why can't you? Are americans simply less intelligent, more violent or does your point simply fail?

Does it? then you say more crap about how few people are shot there as compared to US. Let's forget for a while about total murder numbers because they would need to be adjusted to reflect a per capital basis so that we could compare apples to apples. for example, the US has 5 times the population of the UK.

Let's just talk about a one day event. In which country do you think has the record for one-day school fatalities? The US? Maybe you are thinking, the Columbine High School, Colorado (USA) where 16 were killed. Well, that was a great tragedy but the US is not the only country with murders by guns.

Consider this: March 13, 1996, 16 small children and one teacher were shot and killed inside of a school gymnasium by a lone gunman in (where, in the US?) – read on because it wasn’t in the US.

It happened in, and I quote: “Dunblane, Scotland, on Wednesday morning at about 0930 GMT. After committing the senseless murders, the gunman was reportedly killed by turning the gun on himself. All of the children were said to be for the most part, aged five and six years. The gunman was identified as 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton. Chief Constable William Wilson said that Hamilton was armed with four handguns and at about 0930 GMT burst through the front entrance of the school. He went down a passageway, past the school's dining room and went into the gym, where the school's smallest children were having a class.

The motive for today's mass murder is not known. Incidents such as what happened today are rare in Great Britain because guns are more difficult to obtain than in the United States. This was said to be Britain's worst shooting since August of 1987 when a 27-year-old man shot sixteen people and then himself in Hungerford, England. “

So, the highest number is 17 killed in one event (Scotland), compared to the US were 16 were killed.

Also, consider the following quote taken from the London Times, January, 16, 2000 (Author – Jon Ungoed Thomas:
)
“Killings rise as 3m illegal guns flood Britain. UP TO 3m illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions, new figures have revealed. Police are concerned that the amnesty after the massacre of schoolchildren in Dunblane in 1996, which led to 200,000 weapons being handed in, has failed to dent the underworld's supply of pistols and revolvers.

Criminals have maintained a steady flow of smuggled guns from eastern Europe, exhibition weapons reactivated in illegal "factories" run by underworld dealers, and guns stolen from private collections. The estimate that 3m guns are illegally held in the UK - made by researchers collecting evidence for a parliamentary inquiry into the gun trade - is far higher than previously thought. The vast stockpiles of weapons have fuelled the recent spate of shootings in cities including London, Birmingham and Manchester, where a 17-year-old was killed last week.
And, I can give you many m

"Are americans simply less intelligent, more violent or does your point simply fail? "

We can tell how civilized and brilliant the Europeans are by the respect for there fellow humans they show during soccer games. I guess if we had to watch a game(if that's what you want to call it) for hours and hours only to see it end in a 0-0 tie then we'd probably want to smash people too.

I can assure you that a lot of English cops now have guns.

If the government bans arms, criminals won't shoot, and innocent people won't need to defend them selves. Problem solved. You guys sell guns on the streets. You won't need them if they were banned from being sold anyways.

When you take away guns and all forms of weapons, then the criminals simply resort to other items just as deadly. And often more gruesome. A gun is a quick kill, sometimes not. Still a lot better than getting your head chopped off by a butcher knife, or some axe. What most feel goody "I'm smarter than you" elitist gun control people fail to think about is that some one enraged like this guy, was going to kill people regaurdless. Whether you are religious or not, you should have common sense and see that there will always be evil or deranged people. I am against capital punishment, but anyone in a serious crime should do real time. real working chain gangs. Building border fences, diging irrigation canals, picking trash off of highways. It will slow down enraged idiots when they know they have a price to pay. Probably not this one. but many. And yeah, I say that as someone who has been falsely convicted of a crime. And a lot of the ones who need to be on the side of the road in stripes are the cops. A lot of good ones, a lot of bad ones. Go figure.

One can be done at distance whereas the other means getting bloody. If you are gonna saw someones head off you have to plan and prepare for that. I can shot you from 300m at the drop of a hat.

Please your compasion is embrassing.

You will be retested tomorrow """""(:)@

.

i mean forgive me my sins!

"""(:)@

those police had guns but he seemed to have PUSHED them to the ground with bullet holes. """"(:)@

If an inocent bystander had had a weapon maybe they would have taken the nut case down before so many got killed an ijured before the cops even got on the seen.

In that case a bystander could have shot the guy out of fear he was going to shoot them next. He was on a rampage, he didn't care who he shot.

Guns don't kill people, the the projectile that slides through the lands and groves of the barrel at high velocity that kills people.

Pack your own ammo and weigh the powder, praise the lord and pass the ammo.

It looks as if you have a good sense of humor.

It's been a long time since I last visited this AK video. I had to quit posting on it because it was taking too long to search the post so I could reply to people.

I got a good laugh from your post.

Have a good day.

I am the best marksman on the planet...

You can run but you can't hide, peek a boo eye see u.

AK-47 is low power.