The Panic Has Started****

[ivan salis]

ok lets grant you the 10 round magazine limit * --bad guy just buys more of the 10 round magazines say 9 -10 round ones --instead of 3 -30 round ones -- which only causes him to have to change out a magazine more often when he does a "rampage" shooting event --it in no way --stops the event * it just makes him reload more often which only takes a split second to do , so no "real change" occured --other than the passage of a "feel good" law to say we did something

please take note of the fact that the MENTALLY ILL "20 year old" tried to buy a gun and was DENIED * -- SO HE STOLE HIS MOTHERS "LEGALLY OWNED" GUNS FROM THE HOME --SHOT HER WITH THEM , THEN KILLED THE CHILDREN SHE HAD VOLLUNTEERED WITH THE PRIOR YEAR AT THE SCHOOL -- basically he was pissed off that the mom wanted to have him checked out for mental illness and he felt that she "liked" the little kids she worked with the prior year as pre K at school better than him , so he killed her and the now 1st graders in a fit of mental illness jelious rage --please note the fact that all the current guns laws were followed * ---the kid was denied a gun when he tried to get one --the mom was a legal owner --the kid stole her guns , killing her with them and then others -- so the kid "ignored" the you are not to steal other folks guns and kill folks laws -- so what makes you think "more laws" are the answer , when there are laws already on the books that fully cover what criminal acts that were done (murder and robbery / theft of guns ) --those laws currently exist , and were promptly ignored by the criminal --since criminals do not obey laws.

worth noting is while a M 16 and a AR 15 (bushmaster) may "look alike"they are in fact very differant * weapons --the M 16 is a military style "assault weapon" --it is "fully automatic" meaning it will fire for as long as you hold the trigger down or until its 30 round magazine runs out of bullets which occurs first. ---

the AR15 is a "semi automatic" weapon that fires one round per tigger pull and while it can hold a 30 round magazine the same as a M16 can --it does not fire more than one round per trigger pull --each round fired requires a trigger pull ,so there is no "spraying" type of fire like a M16 can do.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[jeff of pa]

packerbacker: congratulations on the kill. Looks tasty. You kind of proved my point though. You only needed one shot. Why do you need a gun that holds more then 10 bullets in the clip/magazine?

Jeff: You are right. Controlling guns will not stop criminals. I completely agree, that is why I think we should never ban all guns. Murders will continue to happen. However, the boy that killed those 26 people was not a criminal. His mom owned the gun and she was not a criminal. Might he have murdered all of those kids anyways? Nobody knows the answer; however, you cannot deny that if his mom had not owned the gun it would have been harder for him to obtain one. Maybe he would have used a handgun and not killed as many kids.

Again, we live in a society where we compromise our personal liberties every day in various forms. You can't drive as fast as you want to. You can't metal detect where ever you want to. You can't talk about politics on TNET. When you signed up for TNET you agreed to forgo your right to freedom of speech. Why is nobody answering my question?

When does it become worth it to YOU to place limits on these types of guns?

Like I said, for you it may be never. For me...it is Sandy Hook. Nobody holds the key to knowledge, this will happen again. The only guarantee that we have is that the chances of it happening do not decrease if we do nothing. Is it possible the chances could increase by limiting gun use? Sure, anything is possible, but I doubt it.

I can be open Minded enough to guess if boy that killed those 26 people in CT did not have access to any guns in the house,
& never fired one, all those kids may be alive.

If we had Presidents who felt war was wrong, Millions of people around the world would be alive.

IF we had no cars tens of thousands of people would still be alive.

if we could stop executions & suicides many many more people would be alive.

& if we all had the ability to read minds we would know how to stop killings.

Just saying an IF & 99 cents will get me a Burger at Micky-D's

if this is your question

When does it become worth it to YOU to place limits on these types of guns?

to me it's isn't worth it to place limits on anything in a so called free country.

Each person does & should have a right to place limits on the use of their Property, Like the owners of this site do,
But nobody owns the whole US so they should not have the right to say what you or I do on our
particular piece of land we own or air we are Breathing at the moment


http://www.abc27.com/video?clipId=8086066&autostart=true

 

[Crispin]

Jeff: I certainly can't argue against any of those points. You are right, "If" gets us nothing and nowhere. Thank you for answering my question. I can respect your point of view. For you it is never worth it to place limits. For me...it is.

 

[ivan salis]

differanting points of veiw thats what america is all about --one has the the right to protect ones self . loved ones and property , but not the right to rob , rape , murder or harm others just because we "feel like it" --what that 20 year old did was wrong in anybodys book * , be you liberal or conservative ---but how to address it -- one must look at it and see it for what it is --a sad twisted event --where a mentally ill person killed a law abiding person and took their legally owned guns and did a unspeakible crime with them -- how do you stop such a horror ? --can you really ever stop such a freak of nature type of event ?-- after all its really more about "self control" than gun control really.

 

[G.I.B.]

But, the unarguable fact remains that limiting access to guns will decrease gun related deaths. The question I have is...when does it become worth it to you?

So will limiting alcohol. So do we decrease the amount sold? You are only allowed buy a 3 pack of beer? Limiting the amount of alcohol sold will reduce the amount of DUI deaths. Let's close all bars at 10pm. That will also reduce the amount of DUI deaths. (We had lots of children killed this past year in DUI accidents) If you don't take a stand to limit the alcohol sales, are you therefore pro death?

There is a murder trial in progress here, now. He killed with a baseball bat. When do you turn in your baseball bats? Wouldn't it be worth it?

I cited a previously more tragic school mass murder in an earlier post. Did they ban all dynamite because of it?

Removing the tool will not solve the problem. (the tool can be anything) So- by your logic, less guns means less deaths is accurate. But, as it applies to cars as well, are you giving up your car and never going to drive again? When will you remove any possibility of accidentally killing someone with your car be worth it to you?

 

[Crispin]

GIB: Why does it matter? The world is going to end on Friday.

 

[packerbacker]

Actually, that isn't my pig but it was shot with a SKS. This SKS is a "California" SKS. It only holds 10 rounds but is considered an "assault" weapon in this state because of its "appearance". Notice the bayonet? THAT definitely makes it more dangerous than a semi-automatic 30-06 that looks like "grandpa's" rifle. Don't matter that the 30-06 is a much deadlier round at a farther distance. Most anti-gun types have to admit that they either no NOTHING about firearms or they just want to get rid of all of them. If you put a bayonet on the old-style 30-06, then a folding stock, some high-profile sights and paint it black it will also become a very scary looking assault weapon in this state. Same gun, same magazine capacity, same round, just LOOKS different and becomes an assault weapon.

 

[dieselram94]

Crispin, I guess the same logic applies to the new York ban on large sodas, loosing some personal freedoms will protect us from getting fat. Totally stupid and communistic. You can get rid of your guns if you want but I WILL NEVER GIVE THEM UP! If you want to live that way you can move to any number of countries that are more than happy to control their citizens, please stop trying to take our freedoms with fake so called rationalization. Your arguments are ridiculous.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

The "Run on Toilet Paper"... has BEGUN.

 

[jeff of pa]

The "Run on Toilet Paper"... has BEGUN.

I guess allot of people are planning on soiling themselves

 

[Crispin]

DieselRam: Thanks for the kind words and intelligent comments. I prefer to stay in America, but thanks for the suggestion. If a ban on your guns does pass Congress I'm going to ask the police if I can go to your house and pry yours out of your hands with them.

 

[G.I.B.]

It's a fact. Distracted driving causes lots of traffic deaths. So, lets get rid of the distractions. Ban all cell phones from cars. Ban all radios from cars. Ban eating and putting on make up in cars. Force people to pay attention when they drive. It's a fact- this WILL save lives. This WILL save lots of lives.

It's a fact. Having less guns will save lives. Let's ban them.

Now- People are beating the drum to ban assault weapons, high capacity magazines and so forth. It's action! Taking a stand, making the world a better place! Doing something ~ we CARE more than YOU!

These same people will not take a stand against distracted driving. Why? Because it affects them. They will have to put down their cell phones, turn off the radios, stop eating and driving. It will change what they have to do. It's personal, so- nope, don't want to change that. To show the world they care they will take a stand against something that will not effect them, that is easy to do.

Taking the easy way~ Look at me, I have a cause... I'm doing something positive!

 

[dieselram94]

DieselRam: Thanks for the kind words and intelligent comments. I prefer to stay in America, but thanks for the suggestion. If a ban on your guns does pass Congress I'm going to ask the police if I can go to your house and pry yours out of your hands with them.

Good luck, that statement matches your attitude.

 

[Crispin]

Dieselram: if you dish it out you should learn to take it back. Thanks for giving me insight into your mind and how you think. I never had any intention of changing your mind or providing you with insight. However, reading your responses has helped soothe some of the wounds inflicted from this tragedy. In order to defeat my enemy I must first understand him.

 

[XDSA40]

Murders per year in the U.S. declined by ~39%....from 23,440 in 1990...to a low of 14,612 at the end of 2011.

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2011

Schools, hospitals, children's nurseries, etc. and other Gun-Free Zones are soft targets for the mentally unstable and/or any mass murderer. A Gun-Free Zone sign quickly tells the shooter that he can do his dirty work at will and without resistence.

Gun ownership and armed security IS a deterrent.

 

[XLTer]

Crispin, I guess the same logic applies to the new York ban on large sodas, loosing some personal freedoms will protect us from getting fat. Totally stupid and communistic. You can get rid of your guns if you want but I WILL NEVER GIVE THEM UP! If you want to live that way you can move to any number of countries that are more than happy to control their citizens, please stop trying to take our freedoms with fake so called rationalization. Your arguments are ridiculous.

And here is the perfect place to relocate that has banned MANY GUNS . But , you may not want to see the results ....

 

[dieselram94]

It is fitting you would view me or any one else pro gun as a enemy. As far as dishing it out I would say that falls on your statements. You don't like this country's second amendment so you think you and your misinformed friends have the right to take away others rights. Shows your arrogance. The more you post the more anti-American you sound. Get A grip!

Dieselram: if you dish it out you should learn to take it back. Thanks for giving me insight into your mind and how you think. I never had any intention of changing your mind or providing you with insight. However, reading your responses has helped soothe some of the wounds inflicted from this tragedy. In order to defeat my enemy I must first understand him.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Why do millions of Americans resist the right to restrict our guns, because we are guaranteed that right in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Our forfathers wrote it there for a reason and they made the right to own guns Amendment 2 for a reason, they also made it clear in their writings why it is there......

It is the right to have the ability to resist an oppressive government.......I can, as many others here can post hundreds of quotes on why it is there......

Without the full force of the 2nd Amendment the rest of the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on, to attack the 2nd Amendment is to attack the Constitution itself.



Just a few quotes of why our forefathers wrote it into the Bill of Rights.... Remember they were patriots first, politicians second, unlike today!

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

 

[XDSA40]

Hey XLTer, thanks for posting the vid man. I've been wondering how the Australia gun ban worked out...not so good, eh.

I read with interest yesterday that Canada recently reinstated gun rights. Apparantley that ban didn't work out so well either.

 

[Frankn]

Crispin, You say an AR is an assult weapon because it will take a clip that holds more than 10 rounds. Just to let you know, ANY Clip fed gun will take a clip that holds more than 10rounds. Does that mean that you would want to ban any clip fed gun? Most .22 cal rifles with tubular mags hold over 10 rounds. Would you want to ban these also.
You talk about use for hunting and defense, But I am a target shooter. It is much easier to use HC clips. Who are you to say I should be hindered in my sport because you don't like my choice of equipment? I own a Calico which has a 100 round clip. I guess that info might keep you awake tonight, but it inproves my fun at target shooting. Hay, I have probably owned over 100 guns in my lifetime and not one has killed anyone. I served 8 years in the Army and now you are telling me what gun I can have. I didn't serve those 8 years to loose freedom, I served them to preserve freedom. You sound like you work on the Mental end of medicine. Why don't you try to improve things from that prospective? And just to let you know, the murder and assault rates in the US have been going DOWN for years, while the murder and assault rates in the UK Have vastly INCREASED since there gun ban. That should tell you something! Frank