Adam Lanza's Attack Took Less Than 5 Minutes

[idb]

What 63 massacre? You can say it stops a BILLION BUT THAT MEANS NOTHING UNLESS YOU GOT A LINKIE POO.

EXACTLY!!!!
Now you're getting it.

No I'm not getting it. No assault weapons ban stopped any mass shootings.
You would have an argument if their were no mass shooting during Clinton's assault weapons ban. But since we have a numerous mass shooting during that time you failed.

So you would agree to drink-driving laws being repealed, or anti-drug laws, or laws against burglary, murder, mail theft, jay walking, animal abuse.....?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

EXACTLY!!!!
Now you're getting it.

No I'm not getting it. No assault weapons ban stopped any mass shootings.
You would have an argument if their were no mass shooting during Clinton's assault weapons ban. But since we have a numerous mass shooting during that time you failed.

So you would agree to drink-driving laws being repealed, or anti-drug laws, or laws against burglary, murder, mail theft, jay walking, animal abuse.....?

irrelevant
Do you think the deer should be disarmed when the wolves are moving in for the kill?

 

[tinydancer]

EXACTLY!!!!
Now you're getting it.

No I'm not getting it. No assault weapons ban stopped any mass shootings.
You would have an argument if their were no mass shooting during Clinton's assault weapons ban. But since we have a numerous mass shooting during that time you failed.

So you would agree to drink-driving laws being repealed, or anti-drug laws, or laws against burglary, murder, mail theft, jay walking, animal abuse.....?

None of these laws they just passed would have stopped Adam.

Its bullshit. All the laws are bullshit feel good garbage. He killed his mother to get access to her guns.

The Colorado maniac had devices ready to be detonated if they searched his apartment.

We are talking crazy. You can't legislate crazy.

All you do is attempt to disarm the only folks that could help you.

 

[buckeye45_73]

EXACTLY!!!!
Now you're getting it.

No I'm not getting it. No assault weapons ban stopped any mass shootings.
You would have an argument if their were no mass shooting during Clinton's assault weapons ban. But since we have a numerous mass shooting during that time you failed.

So you would agree to drink-driving laws being repealed, or anti-drug laws, or laws against burglary, murder, mail theft, jay walking, animal abuse.....?

you cant be this stupid...notice there are laws for those and people still do them??

But are you saying owning a 30 round magazine is the same as those laws? well maybe jaywalking.....if they repealed it I could care less....but murder, burglary, rape, ect.....

Dude you have a fucked up perspective to equate owning a gun with drunk driving....not the same thing.......
Let me post this video again, Adam Corolla makes fun of your argurment style


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zw4PIcjVNg]Adam Carolla on Gay Parents vs Straight Parents - YouTube[/ame]

I'll give you a hint, it's when he talks about gay parents and cats......hilarious.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No I'm not getting it. No assault weapons ban stopped any mass shootings.
You would have an argument if their were no mass shooting during Clinton's assault weapons ban. But since we have a numerous mass shooting during that time you failed.

So you would agree to drink-driving laws being repealed, or anti-drug laws, or laws against burglary, murder, mail theft, jay walking, animal abuse.....?

None of these laws they just passed would have stopped Adam.

Its bullshit. All the laws are bullshit feel good garbage. He killed his mother to get access to her guns.

The Colorado maniac had devices ready to be detonated if they searched his apartment.

We are talking crazy. You can't legislate crazy.

All you do is attempt to disarm the only folks that could help you.

I still have a hard time mentally digesting the police report. The police said her bushmaster was legally purchased between 2010 and 2012 That's impossible because Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban that banned the sale and possession of any assault weapon manufactured after 1993.

 

[idb]

Ok multipart issue. first what is an assault weapon?
Second how does a gun free zone prevent someone from killing people?
Third how does a gun free zone allow people to fight back if someone does have a gun
Fourth how do any of these laws prevent massacres?

It's hard to show how thing didnt happen, it's like proving a negative, but he did give you a list of things that DID happen,even with that ban, so apparently it wasnt effective.

It doesn't matter how you define an assault weapon - it was bigrednec's contention that the AWB didn't work and presumably that's what failed to prevent the shootings he listed.
Were 'assault weapons' (however you define them) used in all those cases?
If not, was it because there were no 'assault weapons' available to bystanders to stop the shootings?
Were the weapons used on the banned list?
It simply doesn't matter - apparently an AWB doesn't prevent any killings.


I'm not sure that's entirely the idea of a gun-free zone.
The gun lobby suggest that gun-free zones are an attempt to stop shootings but they are partly for health and safety and partly because people like it that way.
It's like the reason that kindergartens don't have sharp scissors for little kids to use - because they might hurt themselves or others.
If you feel unsafe in a gun-free area then go somewhere else - a lot of people feel exactly the opposite.
Personally I would feel less safe where people are able to freely wave firearms around.
I don't know anything about their skill with a weapon or their knowledge of safe use.

Remember that killings happen in non gun-free zones as well.


The same as they always do.
How was the Gabby Giffords shooter stopped?
How do you stop anyone with murderous intent?
How do you stop someone from driving down the footpath in a truck knocking people over?
As I said, if you are worried about a shooting happening if you're in a gun-free zone, then don't go there.

how do any of these laws prevent massacres

Nothing will stop them happening entirely.
Does that mean there should be no effort made?
Are there still deaths from drunk drivers...should the drink driving laws be repealed?

Ok lets go on this

a)If you're going to ban assault weapons, it does matter how you define them

B)What is the purpose then? Noone is suggesting that kindergardeners have guns, we're talking about adults, so what does that have to do with kindergardeners and scissors?

c)People would be safer if people might have a gun, even if they dont, have you noticed all these shootings take place in gun free zones? do you know why? Since gun shows have so many guns and weapons, how come we dont see the killings of this magnitude at those places?

D)They say that's why they need these laws, that's the arguement they're giving, because if not why bring these incidents up?

E) you analogy is off a bit, if they wanted to prevent drunk driving this way, they would ban alcohol and cars or the "assault" versions of alcohol and cars. Just like laws agains drunk driving, there are laws against murder....

So the point is people will still kill others, we should execute them and allow everyone else that is responsible to be free.

A) It really doesn't matter, removing a bayonet mount means nothing. It's the rate of fire and re-load that's the issue in most mass killings. But most gun-killings are carried out by handguns as I understand it. I think the proposals to ban assault weapons is a political move on a relatively easy target (pardon the pun).

B) I'm sorry you didn't follow my analogy. I thought it was clear. I don't know that the people sitting around me in a picture theatre know how to safely handle their gun, or will correctly assess the right situation to pull it out.

C) Far enough, there aren't many mass-shootings at gun shows. Do you know how many gun-free zones there are in the country? How many shootings occur there? I don't. I wonder how dangerous gun-free zones really are statistically.

D) Do you think that things should be allowed to continue as they are without some attempt made? Do you really think that the only way to prevent mass-shootings is to make more guns more freely available? Will the argument continue to be that a shooting occurred because there weren't enough guns about?

E) You're right - maybe it's safer just to ban all firearms.

Look, I own guns and want to keep them.
I think the deeper problem is why people feel unsafe in their own home, school, picture theatre, street without a gun on them.
Isn't that the real issue?

 

[buckeye45_73]

I love this one too
snopes.com: Gabby Giffords' Husband Mark Kelly Buys AR-15
He purchased a gun was playing with it on facebook, then when caught he said he was going to give it to the police? WHAT????


And he bought a used one at a store and said it was too fast, but he couldnt take posession for 20 days? Are you serious?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It doesn't matter how you define an assault weapon - it was bigrednec's contention that the AWB didn't work and presumably that's what failed to prevent the shootings he listed.
Were 'assault weapons' (however you define them) used in all those cases?
If not, was it because there were no 'assault weapons' available to bystanders to stop the shootings?
Were the weapons used on the banned list?
It simply doesn't matter - apparently an AWB doesn't prevent any killings.


I'm not sure that's entirely the idea of a gun-free zone.
The gun lobby suggest that gun-free zones are an attempt to stop shootings but they are partly for health and safety and partly because people like it that way.
It's like the reason that kindergartens don't have sharp scissors for little kids to use - because they might hurt themselves or others.
If you feel unsafe in a gun-free area then go somewhere else - a lot of people feel exactly the opposite.
Personally I would feel less safe where people are able to freely wave firearms around.
I don't know anything about their skill with a weapon or their knowledge of safe use.

Remember that killings happen in non gun-free zones as well.


The same as they always do.
How was the Gabby Giffords shooter stopped?
How do you stop anyone with murderous intent?
How do you stop someone from driving down the footpath in a truck knocking people over?
As I said, if you are worried about a shooting happening if you're in a gun-free zone, then don't go there.


Nothing will stop them happening entirely.
Does that mean there should be no effort made?
Are there still deaths from drunk drivers...should the drink driving laws be repealed?

Ok lets go on this

a)If you're going to ban assault weapons, it does matter how you define them

B)What is the purpose then? Noone is suggesting that kindergardeners have guns, we're talking about adults, so what does that have to do with kindergardeners and scissors?

c)People would be safer if people might have a gun, even if they dont, have you noticed all these shootings take place in gun free zones? do you know why? Since gun shows have so many guns and weapons, how come we dont see the killings of this magnitude at those places?

D)They say that's why they need these laws, that's the arguement they're giving, because if not why bring these incidents up?

E) you analogy is off a bit, if they wanted to prevent drunk driving this way, they would ban alcohol and cars or the "assault" versions of alcohol and cars. Just like laws agains drunk driving, there are laws against murder....

So the point is people will still kill others, we should execute them and allow everyone else that is responsible to be free.

A) It really doesn't matter, removing a bayonet mount means nothing. It's the rate of fire and re-load that's the issue in most mass killings. But most gun-killings are carried out by handguns as I understand it. I think the proposals to ban assault weapons is a political move on a relatively easy target (pardon the pun).

B) I'm sorry you didn't follow my analogy. I thought it was clear. I don't know that the people sitting around me in a picture theatre know how to safely handle their gun, or will correctly assess the right situation to pull it out.

C) Far enough, there aren't many mass-shootings at gun shows. Do you know how many gun-free zones there are in the country? How many shootings occur there? I don't. I wonder how dangerous gun-free zones really are statistically.

D) Do you think that things should be allowed to continue as they are without some attempt made? Do you really think that the only way to prevent mass-shootings is to make more guns more freely available? Will the argument continue to be that a shooting occurred because there weren't enough guns about?

E) You're right - maybe it's safer just to ban all firearms.

Look, I own guns and want to keep them.
I think the deeper problem is why people feel unsafe in their own home, school, picture theatre, street without a gun on them.
Isn't that the real issue?

Really the rate of fire? I hope you will allow this to sink in
12 shots in 3 seconds.
[ame=http://youtu.be/lLk1v5bSFPw]World Record 12 Shots In Under 3 Seconds - YouTube[/ame]

 

[idb]

No I'm not getting it. No assault weapons ban stopped any mass shootings.
You would have an argument if their were no mass shooting during Clinton's assault weapons ban. But since we have a numerous mass shooting during that time you failed.

So you would agree to drink-driving laws being repealed, or anti-drug laws, or laws against burglary, murder, mail theft, jay walking, animal abuse.....?

you cant be this stupid...notice there are laws for those and people still do them??

But are you saying owning a 30 round magazine is the same as those laws? well maybe jaywalking.....if they repealed it I could care less....but murder, burglary, rape, ect.....

Dude you have a fucked up perspective to equate owning a gun with drunk driving....not the same thing.......
Let me post this video again, Adam Corolla makes fun of your argurment style


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zw4PIcjVNg]Adam Carolla on Gay Parents vs Straight Parents - YouTube[/ame]

I'll give you a hint, it's when he talks about gay parents and cats......hilarious.

It's perfectly simple.
The argument is that passing a law won't prevent every crime so why have the law.
It's exactly the same thing with drink driving etc.....why bother passing laws if they don't stop drink driving?

 

[idb]

Ok multipart issue. first what is an assault weapon?
Second how does a gun free zone prevent someone from killing people?
Third how does a gun free zone allow people to fight back if someone does have a gun
Fourth how do any of these laws prevent massacres?

It's hard to show how thing didnt happen, it's like proving a negative, but he did give you a list of things that DID happen,even with that ban, so apparently it wasnt effective.

It doesn't matter how you define an assault weapon - it was bigrednec's contention that the AWB didn't work and presumably that's what failed to prevent the shootings he listed.
Were 'assault weapons' (however you define them) used in all those cases?
If not, was it because there were no 'assault weapons' available to bystanders to stop the shootings?
Were the weapons used on the banned list?
It simply doesn't matter - apparently an AWB doesn't prevent any killings.


I'm not sure that's entirely the idea of a gun-free zone.
The gun lobby suggest that gun-free zones are an attempt to stop shootings but they are partly for health and safety and partly because people like it that way.
It's like the reason that kindergartens don't have sharp scissors for little kids to use - because they might hurt themselves or others.
If you feel unsafe in a gun-free area then go somewhere else - a lot of people feel exactly the opposite.
Personally I would feel less safe where people are able to freely wave firearms around.
I don't know anything about their skill with a weapon or their knowledge of safe use.

Remember that killings happen in non gun-free zones as well.


The same as they always do.
How was the Gabby Giffords shooter stopped?
How do you stop anyone with murderous intent?
How do you stop someone from driving down the footpath in a truck knocking people over?
As I said, if you are worried about a shooting happening if you're in a gun-free zone, then don't go there.

how do any of these laws prevent massacres

Nothing will stop them happening entirely.
Does that mean there should be no effort made?
Are there still deaths from drunk drivers...should the drink driving laws be repealed?

Look dude we have something you don't it's based on the foundation of God Given rights. Unlike you we stopped being subject too the crown.
Yes we have a second amendment right something we will never give up without blood shed.

Look dude, the serious people aren't trying to ban guns.

And I know The Queen will come to my rescue if I need her.

 

[idb]

Ok lets go on this

a)If you're going to ban assault weapons, it does matter how you define them

B)What is the purpose then? Noone is suggesting that kindergardeners have guns, we're talking about adults, so what does that have to do with kindergardeners and scissors?

c)People would be safer if people might have a gun, even if they dont, have you noticed all these shootings take place in gun free zones? do you know why? Since gun shows have so many guns and weapons, how come we dont see the killings of this magnitude at those places?

D)They say that's why they need these laws, that's the arguement they're giving, because if not why bring these incidents up?

E) you analogy is off a bit, if they wanted to prevent drunk driving this way, they would ban alcohol and cars or the "assault" versions of alcohol and cars. Just like laws agains drunk driving, there are laws against murder....

So the point is people will still kill others, we should execute them and allow everyone else that is responsible to be free.

A) It really doesn't matter, removing a bayonet mount means nothing. It's the rate of fire and re-load that's the issue in most mass killings. But most gun-killings are carried out by handguns as I understand it. I think the proposals to ban assault weapons is a political move on a relatively easy target (pardon the pun).

B) I'm sorry you didn't follow my analogy. I thought it was clear. I don't know that the people sitting around me in a picture theatre know how to safely handle their gun, or will correctly assess the right situation to pull it out.

C) Far enough, there aren't many mass-shootings at gun shows. Do you know how many gun-free zones there are in the country? How many shootings occur there? I don't. I wonder how dangerous gun-free zones really are statistically.

D) Do you think that things should be allowed to continue as they are without some attempt made? Do you really think that the only way to prevent mass-shootings is to make more guns more freely available? Will the argument continue to be that a shooting occurred because there weren't enough guns about?

E) You're right - maybe it's safer just to ban all firearms.

Look, I own guns and want to keep them.
I think the deeper problem is why people feel unsafe in their own home, school, picture theatre, street without a gun on them.
Isn't that the real issue?

Really the rate of fire? I hope you will allow this to sink in
12 shots in 3 seconds.
[ame=http://youtu.be/lLk1v5bSFPw]World Record 12 Shots In Under 3 Seconds - YouTube[/ame]

He's good!
So, any mad bozo can walk off the street, buy a handgun and pump out bullets at that speed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you would agree to drink-driving laws being repealed, or anti-drug laws, or laws against burglary, murder, mail theft, jay walking, animal abuse.....?

you cant be this stupid...notice there are laws for those and people still do them??

But are you saying owning a 30 round magazine is the same as those laws? well maybe jaywalking.....if they repealed it I could care less....but murder, burglary, rape, ect.....

Dude you have a fucked up perspective to equate owning a gun with drunk driving....not the same thing.......
Let me post this video again, Adam Corolla makes fun of your argurment style


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zw4PIcjVNg]Adam Carolla on Gay Parents vs Straight Parents - YouTube[/ame]

I'll give you a hint, it's when he talks about gay parents and cats......hilarious.

It's perfectly simple.
The argument is that passing a law won't prevent every crime so why have the law.
It's exactly the same thing with drink driving etc.....why bother passing laws if they don't stop drink driving?

One is a right and the others are privileges
Rights cannot be taken away without due process
With privileges you are at the will of the government.

 

[buckeye45_73]

It doesn't matter how you define an assault weapon - it was bigrednec's contention that the AWB didn't work and presumably that's what failed to prevent the shootings he listed.
Were 'assault weapons' (however you define them) used in all those cases?
If not, was it because there were no 'assault weapons' available to bystanders to stop the shootings?
Were the weapons used on the banned list?
It simply doesn't matter - apparently an AWB doesn't prevent any killings.


I'm not sure that's entirely the idea of a gun-free zone.
The gun lobby suggest that gun-free zones are an attempt to stop shootings but they are partly for health and safety and partly because people like it that way.
It's like the reason that kindergartens don't have sharp scissors for little kids to use - because they might hurt themselves or others.
If you feel unsafe in a gun-free area then go somewhere else - a lot of people feel exactly the opposite.
Personally I would feel less safe where people are able to freely wave firearms around.
I don't know anything about their skill with a weapon or their knowledge of safe use.

Remember that killings happen in non gun-free zones as well.


The same as they always do.
How was the Gabby Giffords shooter stopped?
How do you stop anyone with murderous intent?
How do you stop someone from driving down the footpath in a truck knocking people over?
As I said, if you are worried about a shooting happening if you're in a gun-free zone, then don't go there.


Nothing will stop them happening entirely.
Does that mean there should be no effort made?
Are there still deaths from drunk drivers...should the drink driving laws be repealed?

Ok lets go on this

a)If you're going to ban assault weapons, it does matter how you define them

B)What is the purpose then? Noone is suggesting that kindergardeners have guns, we're talking about adults, so what does that have to do with kindergardeners and scissors?

c)People would be safer if people might have a gun, even if they dont, have you noticed all these shootings take place in gun free zones? do you know why? Since gun shows have so many guns and weapons, how come we dont see the killings of this magnitude at those places?

D)They say that's why they need these laws, that's the arguement they're giving, because if not why bring these incidents up?

E) you analogy is off a bit, if they wanted to prevent drunk driving this way, they would ban alcohol and cars or the "assault" versions of alcohol and cars. Just like laws agains drunk driving, there are laws against murder....

So the point is people will still kill others, we should execute them and allow everyone else that is responsible to be free.

A) It really doesn't matter, removing a bayonet mount means nothing. It's the rate of fire and re-load that's the issue in most mass killings. But most gun-killings are carried out by handguns as I understand it. I think the proposals to ban assault weapons is a political move on a relatively easy target (pardon the pun).

That's the real truth....it's an easy target to sell soccer moms....it has nothing to do with saving lives....I think liberals dont want us to have guns for the same reasons the founders did want us to have guns.


B) I'm sorry you didn't follow my analogy. I thought it was clear. I don't know that the people sitting around me in a picture theatre know how to safely handle their gun, or will correctly assess the right situation to pull it out.

People act like shooting a gun is difficult, it's not that difficult....you dont need an engineering degree...but most places that have concealed carry require you to take a shooting course. I'm ok with that...but I'd rather have a chance than no chance

C) Far enough, there aren't many mass-shootings at gun shows. Do you know how many gun-free zones there are in the country? How many shootings occur there? I don't. I wonder how dangerous gun-free zones really are statistically.

Well criminals know they wont get shot out most likely so they seem to have picked those places....shooting are relatively small in the mass variety, but pretty much all of them have been schools, theatres and places guns are not allowed.....

D) Do you think that things should be allowed to continue as they are without some attempt made? Do you really think that the only way to prevent mass-shootings is to make more guns more freely available? Will the argument continue to be that a shooting occurred because there weren't enough guns about?

Uh I dont knee jerk react based on a situation...you have to see the information...banning guns or clips or whatever just doesnt work....Chicago you cant buy a gun...very restrictive....pretty much a complete ban, but ask the south siders if it's working....nope...they are dying....bye the hundreds...

E) You're right - maybe it's safer just to ban all firearms.

Well that woudl be unconstitutional....but again bad guys will get them, laws dont stop them. Only punshiments and morality does.

Look, I own guns and want to keep them.
I think the deeper problem is why people feel unsafe in their own home, school, picture theatre, street without a gun on them.
Isn't that the real issue?

I dont even own a gun, my rifle is in memphis at my dads, im in denver...havent shot it in years.....so I do but dont own one. The reason people feel unsafe is first most thing criminals have more legal protection than we do.....they dont have to follow laws and when then get convicted, the sentance isnt harsh enough...and so crime has gone up in the last 50 yerar as we have had more gun laws and weaker laws and punishments for criminals. This stuff didnt happen 50+ uyears ago nearly as often because the criminals knew better....

o

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A) It really doesn't matter, removing a bayonet mount means nothing. It's the rate of fire and re-load that's the issue in most mass killings. But most gun-killings are carried out by handguns as I understand it. I think the proposals to ban assault weapons is a political move on a relatively easy target (pardon the pun).

B) I'm sorry you didn't follow my analogy. I thought it was clear. I don't know that the people sitting around me in a picture theatre know how to safely handle their gun, or will correctly assess the right situation to pull it out.

C) Far enough, there aren't many mass-shootings at gun shows. Do you know how many gun-free zones there are in the country? How many shootings occur there? I don't. I wonder how dangerous gun-free zones really are statistically.

D) Do you think that things should be allowed to continue as they are without some attempt made? Do you really think that the only way to prevent mass-shootings is to make more guns more freely available? Will the argument continue to be that a shooting occurred because there weren't enough guns about?

E) You're right - maybe it's safer just to ban all firearms.

Look, I own guns and want to keep them.
I think the deeper problem is why people feel unsafe in their own home, school, picture theatre, street without a gun on them.
Isn't that the real issue?

Really the rate of fire? I hope you will allow this to sink in
12 shots in 3 seconds.
[ame=http://youtu.be/lLk1v5bSFPw]World Record 12 Shots In Under 3 Seconds - YouTube[/ame]

He's good!
So, any mad bozo can walk off the street, buy a handgun and pump out bullets at that speed?

some bozos can't even do that with a drum magazine.
But I can maybe not as fast as he can but I can do it in about five and a half seconds I 've done 18 in under 11

 

[idb]

you cant be this stupid...notice there are laws for those and people still do them??

But are you saying owning a 30 round magazine is the same as those laws? well maybe jaywalking.....if they repealed it I could care less....but murder, burglary, rape, ect.....

Dude you have a fucked up perspective to equate owning a gun with drunk driving....not the same thing.......
Let me post this video again, Adam Corolla makes fun of your argurment style


Adam Carolla on Gay Parents vs Straight Parents - YouTube

I'll give you a hint, it's when he talks about gay parents and cats......hilarious.

It's perfectly simple.
The argument is that passing a law won't prevent every crime so why have the law.
It's exactly the same thing with drink driving etc.....why bother passing laws if they don't stop drink driving?

One is a right and the others are privileges
Rights cannot be taken away without due process
With privileges you are at the will of the government.

Is it a right to use an inappropriate weapon in an inappropriate manner in an inappropriate situation causing danger to others?

 

[idb]

Ok lets go on this

a)If you're going to ban assault weapons, it does matter how you define them

B)What is the purpose then? Noone is suggesting that kindergardeners have guns, we're talking about adults, so what does that have to do with kindergardeners and scissors?

c)People would be safer if people might have a gun, even if they dont, have you noticed all these shootings take place in gun free zones? do you know why? Since gun shows have so many guns and weapons, how come we dont see the killings of this magnitude at those places?

D)They say that's why they need these laws, that's the arguement they're giving, because if not why bring these incidents up?

E) you analogy is off a bit, if they wanted to prevent drunk driving this way, they would ban alcohol and cars or the "assault" versions of alcohol and cars. Just like laws agains drunk driving, there are laws against murder....

So the point is people will still kill others, we should execute them and allow everyone else that is responsible to be free.

A) It really doesn't matter, removing a bayonet mount means nothing. It's the rate of fire and re-load that's the issue in most mass killings. But most gun-killings are carried out by handguns as I understand it. I think the proposals to ban assault weapons is a political move on a relatively easy target (pardon the pun).

That's the real truth....it's an easy target to sell soccer moms....it has nothing to do with saving lives....I think liberals dont want us to have guns for the same reasons the founders did want us to have guns.


B) I'm sorry you didn't follow my analogy. I thought it was clear. I don't know that the people sitting around me in a picture theatre know how to safely handle their gun, or will correctly assess the right situation to pull it out.

People act like shooting a gun is difficult, it's not that difficult....you dont need an engineering degree...but most places that have concealed carry require you to take a shooting course. I'm ok with that...but I'd rather have a chance than no chance

C) Far enough, there aren't many mass-shootings at gun shows. Do you know how many gun-free zones there are in the country? How many shootings occur there? I don't. I wonder how dangerous gun-free zones really are statistically.

Well criminals know they wont get shot out most likely so they seem to have picked those places....shooting are relatively small in the mass variety, but pretty much all of them have been schools, theatres and places guns are not allowed.....

D) Do you think that things should be allowed to continue as they are without some attempt made? Do you really think that the only way to prevent mass-shootings is to make more guns more freely available? Will the argument continue to be that a shooting occurred because there weren't enough guns about?

Uh I dont knee jerk react based on a situation...you have to see the information...banning guns or clips or whatever just doesnt work....Chicago you cant buy a gun...very restrictive....pretty much a complete ban, but ask the south siders if it's working....nope...they are dying....bye the hundreds...

E) You're right - maybe it's safer just to ban all firearms.

Well that woudl be unconstitutional....but again bad guys will get them, laws dont stop them. Only punshiments and morality does.

Look, I own guns and want to keep them.
I think the deeper problem is why people feel unsafe in their own home, school, picture theatre, street without a gun on them.
Isn't that the real issue?

I dont even own a gun, my rifle is in memphis at my dads, im in denver...havent shot it in years.....so I do but dont own one. The reason people feel unsafe is first most thing criminals have more legal protection than we do.....they dont have to follow laws and when then get convicted, the sentance isnt harsh enough...and so crime has gone up in the last 50 yerar as we have had more gun laws and weaker laws and punishments for criminals. This stuff didnt happen 50+ uyears ago nearly as often because the criminals knew better....

o

C) Far enough, there aren't many mass-shootings at gun shows. Do you know how many gun-free zones there are in the country? How many shootings occur there? I don't. I wonder how dangerous gun-free zones really are statistically.

Well criminals know they wont get shot out most likely so they seem to have picked those places....shooting are relatively small in the mass variety, but pretty much all of them have been schools, theatres and places guns are not allowed.....

I haven't done any research on this but don't most mass-shooters end up dying anyway?
They must know that when they start - especially as many of them shoot themselves.
So why would they be afraid of other people with guns?

D) Do you think that things should be allowed to continue as they are without some attempt made? Do you really think that the only way to prevent mass-shootings is to make more guns more freely available? Will the argument continue to be that a shooting occurred because there weren't enough guns about?

Uh I dont knee jerk react based on a situation...you have to see the information...banning guns or clips or whatever just doesnt work....Chicago you cant buy a gun...very restrictive....pretty much a complete ban, but ask the south siders if it's working....nope...they are dying....bye the hundreds...

You're right, any laws must be carefully considered.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's perfectly simple.
The argument is that passing a law won't prevent every crime so why have the law.
It's exactly the same thing with drink driving etc.....why bother passing laws if they don't stop drink driving?

One is a right and the others are privileges
Rights cannot be taken away without due process
With privileges you are at the will of the government.

Is it a right to use an inappropriate weapon in an inappropriate manner in an inappropriate situation causing danger to others?

Again Americans have a right to choose you don't get the right to choose for them.

 

[idb]

One is a right and the others are privileges
Rights cannot be taken away without due process
With privileges you are at the will of the government.

Is it a right to use an inappropriate weapon in an inappropriate manner in an inappropriate situation causing danger to others?

Again Americans have a right to choose you don't get the right to choose for them.

So you have no counter-argument?
That looks like a victory to me then.

 

[buckeye45_73]

A) It really doesn't matter, removing a bayonet mount means nothing. It's the rate of fire and re-load that's the issue in most mass killings. But most gun-killings are carried out by handguns as I understand it. I think the proposals to ban assault weapons is a political move on a relatively easy target (pardon the pun).

That's the real truth....it's an easy target to sell soccer moms....it has nothing to do with saving lives....I think liberals dont want us to have guns for the same reasons the founders did want us to have guns.


B) I'm sorry you didn't follow my analogy. I thought it was clear. I don't know that the people sitting around me in a picture theatre know how to safely handle their gun, or will correctly assess the right situation to pull it out.

People act like shooting a gun is difficult, it's not that difficult....you dont need an engineering degree...but most places that have concealed carry require you to take a shooting course. I'm ok with that...but I'd rather have a chance than no chance

C) Far enough, there aren't many mass-shootings at gun shows. Do you know how many gun-free zones there are in the country? How many shootings occur there? I don't. I wonder how dangerous gun-free zones really are statistically.

Well criminals know they wont get shot out most likely so they seem to have picked those places....shooting are relatively small in the mass variety, but pretty much all of them have been schools, theatres and places guns are not allowed.....

D) Do you think that things should be allowed to continue as they are without some attempt made? Do you really think that the only way to prevent mass-shootings is to make more guns more freely available? Will the argument continue to be that a shooting occurred because there weren't enough guns about?

Uh I dont knee jerk react based on a situation...you have to see the information...banning guns or clips or whatever just doesnt work....Chicago you cant buy a gun...very restrictive....pretty much a complete ban, but ask the south siders if it's working....nope...they are dying....bye the hundreds...

E) You're right - maybe it's safer just to ban all firearms.

Well that woudl be unconstitutional....but again bad guys will get them, laws dont stop them. Only punshiments and morality does.

Look, I own guns and want to keep them.
I think the deeper problem is why people feel unsafe in their own home, school, picture theatre, street without a gun on them.
Isn't that the real issue?

I dont even own a gun, my rifle is in memphis at my dads, im in denver...havent shot it in years.....so I do but dont own one. The reason people feel unsafe is first most thing criminals have more legal protection than we do.....they dont have to follow laws and when then get convicted, the sentance isnt harsh enough...and so crime has gone up in the last 50 yerar as we have had more gun laws and weaker laws and punishments for criminals. This stuff didnt happen 50+ uyears ago nearly as often because the criminals knew better....

o

C) Far enough, there aren't many mass-shootings at gun shows. Do you know how many gun-free zones there are in the country? How many shootings occur there? I don't. I wonder how dangerous gun-free zones really are statistically.

Well criminals know they wont get shot out most likely so they seem to have picked those places....shooting are relatively small in the mass variety, but pretty much all of them have been schools, theatres and places guns are not allowed.....

I haven't done any research on this but don't most mass-shooters end up dying anyway?
They must know that when they start - especially as many of them shoot themselves.
So why would they be afraid of other people with guns?

A couple of reasons, the main being they want to kill as many people as possible, easier to do that when noone is shooting back. Why do they want to kill, why does anyone want to kill? But it's almost like natural born killers nowadays with the fame and all. An the guy in CT is going to jail....great idea...now for the next 50+ years the families get to hear about it and I'm sure his legal teams will be in the news...Just kill him and get closure.

D) Do you think that things should be allowed to continue as they are without some attempt made? Do you really think that the only way to prevent mass-shootings is to make more guns more freely available? Will the argument continue to be that a shooting occurred because there weren't enough guns about?

Uh I dont knee jerk react based on a situation...you have to see the information...banning guns or clips or whatever just doesnt work....Chicago you cant buy a gun...very restrictive....pretty much a complete ban, but ask the south siders if it's working....nope...they are dying....bye the hundreds...

You're right, any laws must be carefully considered.

o

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is it a right to use an inappropriate weapon in an inappropriate manner in an inappropriate situation causing danger to others?

Again Americans have a right to choose you don't get the right to choose for them.

So you have no counter-argument?
That looks like a victory to me then.

I thought I explained it throughly it must be that subject mentality you have been fed all your life, that it makes it hard for you too comprehend.