So.................gun control?

@xSharp agreed. These laws only effect the law abiding citizens

@MasterLee citizens need to stop abiding the law then.

@xSharp may come down to that if these liberals continue.

@xSharp they already do....case in point, the two "idiots" that you mention in your original post. Fighting fire with fire is a great expression, but not practical at all.

@SW-User to stop a forest fire from spreading you can burn the fuel in the fires path before it reaches said fuel in order to starve it. a tactic used to literally fight fire with fire.

so you were saying what about this expression? lol 😂

@xSharp true enough, but I guess i was thinking that eventually even the fire that is helping to put out the fire , needs to be extinguished by something other than fire? Im probably mistaken, but in any case,that's merely a smoke screen created to distract from the reality that me and everyone I know having a gun , isn't going to necessarily prevent me from getting shot and killed by some random lunitic hiding where nobody can see them. What would prevent that from happening is if the random lunitic couldn't get his or her hands on a gun in the first place. I know you won't agree, and that's fine. You can get a gun legally or illegally , depending where you live . I don't think you're going to let the law stand in your way. I wish you all the best, but I just hope your plan doesn't backfire on you.

@SW-User a trench is dug between the fire that is to be made and the trees behind the trench that are not meant to be burned, these threes are continuously soaked with water to prevent the flames being blown over the trench setting them on fire, the only thing that would screw this plan is very strong winds.

here in canada we are not allowed to own body armor, yet criminals and gang members still have access to them as well as assault weapons, you cannot kill someone with body armor so what is the point in making it illegal when it would save lives without any chance of a life being taken by one?

they wont allow us to protect ourselves, they wont allow us to defend ourselves, they wont even leave the criminals in jail anymore.. why do you think that is?

at the end of the day those willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both.

@xSharp again, thank you for your expertise on the extinguishing of a forest fire. Too bad when they created that trench, they didn't bury all the guns in there, and fill it with cement, but however...

If "criminals" have access to body armor, and it means that much to you...why not be a criminal and get yourself some body armor. I personally don't have an issue with body armor, unless you intend to beat someone to death with it. Understandably, that is as probable as beating someone to death with your hockey stick,and nobody is banning those.

I do still have an issue with hand guns, and assault rifles in the hands of each and every citizen of any country you live in. Life is not a John Wayne movie. There's no distinction between good and bad guys. No white hats, or black hats. Just more potential for unnecessary killing. Imagine if all the people in Vegas had of been armed that night. what would have happened? Nobody could see the shooter. Might have people just started drawing their guns and firing randomly to try and save the day, if not just themselves? How many more people might have been injured or killed in that scenario? It's just a question I ask myself. Like I said....go get your guns and amo. Get your body armor, and be a criminal, a hero , or whatever it is you think that will make you, and be happy. Just don't expect everyone to support your cause.

@SW-User the thing is, the weapons used in vegas were already prohibited to begin with, and so was the flash hider he was using as far as i know, and as far as suppressors go the machine guns would have melted them if they had tried to use them.

they used flash hiders to conceal the location of the other shooters.

@xSharp k then.