Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

[Ghost of a Rider]

You’re the one who’s always bringing up penis sizes so you tell me.

A man who is swayed by marketing directed at the male ego is nuts or crazy or retarded. But then if a man “whines” too much (by your estimation), you insult his male ego by calling him “Dick Tiny”.

It seems to me that you’re the one who’s confused here and maybe not quite so well adjusted.

I don't need a gun to prove my manhood... some of you apparently do.

It may not be guns but it’s obvious you need something to prove your manhood or you wouldn’t keep calling us “Dick Tiny”.

I handled enough guns in the Army to last me six lifetimes, if I never see another one, that's fine. I just want to make sure people like Adam Lanza don't get them. If you are telling me we can't do that without taking away your guns, too.... I REALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I’m not telling you anything other than that the specific brand and model of the gun used is immaterial. Lanza could have done just as much damage with a handgun, a shotgun or even a knife.

Shooting up a school is like - if you’ll pardon the metaphor - shooting fish in a barrel. In a situation like that, children are scared shitless and just want to get the **** away from the shooter. In other words, no one is shooting back so he can go from victim to victim and kill at his leisure.

Now, if you can come up with a way that keeps Adam Lanza from getting a gun, but you get to keep yours, I'm all for it.

No you’re not. You’d just as soon they all go away even if no one is ever killed by one again. And as I said before, I don’t own an AR-15.

Irrelevant. Your argument that it wouldn’t have happened if Nancy hadn’t had the guns in the house is still null and void.

No one else would have given that crazy retard a gun.

The guns didn’t belong to him and nobody gave them to him.

I have no doubt of that. That’s why I’m glad you’re not on the jury. In fact, you should never be on any jury. You are not capable of objectivity and are too easily swayed by your emotions. You would be pure poison to any legal trial.

Actually, I'd be the one calling bullshit on the lawyers and getting to the truth.

You wouldn’t be “getting to the truth”, you’d be trying to make the gun company guilty no matter what the truth is.

The truth is, Remington KNEW that crazy people were buying their weapons... they didn't care. In fact, they saw crazy people as their prime market.

THAT'S WHY THEY ARE GUILTY.

No. This is your emotions getting the best of you.

Do gun manufacturers know that some people will use their product unlawfully? Of course.
Do car manufacturers know that some people will drink and drive or text and drive and kill people? Of course.
Do makers of four wheelers and dirt bikes know some people will use their product recklessly and get themselves killed? Of course.

So why should a manufacturer of firearms be held accountable if a customer knowingly chooses to break the law with their product but not a car manufacturer if someone knowingly breaks the law by drinking and driving?

I don't give a **** about "Law", I care about JUSTICE.

No you don’t. If you were then you would be aware of the facts of the case and you wouldn’t persist with and perpetuate falsehoods even after knowing the facts.
You are so obsessed with making Nancy out to be insane and directly at fault that you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that they were able to get data off Lanza’s computer for Christ’s sake. You couldn’t acknowledge this because the data showed he had been planning the shooting for a year and thus it blew a hole in your argument that her trip sent him over the edge.

Your hate and contempt for gun owners oozes from every one of your posts and is obvious to everyone here. Your judgments and motives simply can’t be trusted.

 

[2aguy]

You’re the one who’s always bringing up penis sizes so you tell me.

A man who is swayed by marketing directed at the male ego is nuts or crazy or retarded. But then if a man “whines” too much (by your estimation), you insult his male ego by calling him “Dick Tiny”.

It seems to me that you’re the one who’s confused here and maybe not quite so well adjusted.

I don't need a gun to prove my manhood... some of you apparently do.

It may not be guns but it’s obvious you need something to prove your manhood or you wouldn’t keep calling us “Dick Tiny”.

I handled enough guns in the Army to last me six lifetimes, if I never see another one, that's fine. I just want to make sure people like Adam Lanza don't get them. If you are telling me we can't do that without taking away your guns, too.... I REALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I’m not telling you anything other than that the specific brand and model of the gun used is immaterial. Lanza could have done just as much damage with a handgun, a shotgun or even a knife.

Shooting up a school is like - if you’ll pardon the metaphor - shooting fish in a barrel. In a situation like that, children are scared shitless and just want to get the **** away from the shooter. In other words, no one is shooting back so he can go from victim to victim and kill at his leisure.

Now, if you can come up with a way that keeps Adam Lanza from getting a gun, but you get to keep yours, I'm all for it.

No you’re not. You’d just as soon they all go away even if no one is ever killed by one again. And as I said before, I don’t own an AR-15.

Irrelevant. Your argument that it wouldn’t have happened if Nancy hadn’t had the guns in the house is still null and void.

No one else would have given that crazy retard a gun.

The guns didn’t belong to him and nobody gave them to him.

I have no doubt of that. That’s why I’m glad you’re not on the jury. In fact, you should never be on any jury. You are not capable of objectivity and are too easily swayed by your emotions. You would be pure poison to any legal trial.

Actually, I'd be the one calling bullshit on the lawyers and getting to the truth.

You wouldn’t be “getting to the truth”, you’d be trying to make the gun company guilty no matter what the truth is.

The truth is, Remington KNEW that crazy people were buying their weapons... they didn't care. In fact, they saw crazy people as their prime market.

THAT'S WHY THEY ARE GUILTY.

No. This is your emotions getting the best of you.

Do gun manufacturers know that some people will use their product unlawfully? Of course.
Do car manufacturers know that some people will drink and drive or text and drive and kill people? Of course.
Do makers of four wheelers and dirt bikes know some people will use their product recklessly and get themselves killed? Of course.

So why should a manufacturer of firearms be held accountable if a customer knowingly chooses to break the law with their product but not a car manufacturer if someone knowingly breaks the law by drinking and driving?

I don't give a **** about "Law", I care about JUSTICE.

No you don’t. If you were then you would be aware of the facts of the case and you wouldn’t persist with and perpetuate falsehoods even after knowing the facts.
You are so obsessed with making Nancy out to be insane and directly at fault that you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that they were able to get data off Lanza’s computer for Christ’s sake. You couldn’t acknowledge this because the data showed he had been planning the shooting for a year and thus it blew a hole in your argument that her trip sent him over the edge.

Your hate and contempt for gun owners oozes from every one of your posts and is obvious to everyone here. Your judgments and motives simply can’t be trusted.

Yes...the shooter chose that school for 2 reasons...one, it didn't have a police resource officer...the middle school and the high school had them, the elementary school didn't...it was a completely gun free zone.....and two, in his notes he stated he wanted the highest score possible...that is how he saw the attack, as a game, and the kindergarten children were the most helpless and easily murdered...so he could have achieved the same result with a pump action shotgun or revolvers....

 

[JoeB131]

It may not be guns but it’s obvious you need something to prove your manhood or you wouldn’t keep calling us “Dick Tiny”.

Naw, I'm just making fun or you need to "compensate" for your shortcomings.

I’m not telling you anything other than that the specific brand and model of the gun used is immaterial. Lanza could have done just as much damage with a handgun, a shotgun or even a knife.

Shooting up a school is like - if you’ll pardon the metaphor - shooting fish in a barrel. In a situation like that, children are scared shitless and just want to get the **** away from the shooter. In other words, no one is shooting back so he can go from victim to victim and kill at his leisure.

Yeah, I'm sure you guys spend time thinking about the mechanics of this sort of thing.... but an AR15 is a weapon of war, and that place looked like a battlefield when he was done.

You wouldn’t be “getting to the truth”, you’d be trying to make the gun company guilty no matter what the truth is.

The gun companies are guilty.... this isn't complicated. When they start losing money selling guns to crazy people, watch how fast they get behind licensing, registration and THOROUGH background checks.

You are so obsessed with making Nancy out to be insane and directly at fault that you can’t ....e.

Blah, blah, blah... the ***** was arming herself like the Zombies were coming.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes...the shooter chose that school for 2 reasons...one, it didn't have a police resource officer...the middle school and the high school had them, the elementary school didn't...it was a completely gun free zone.....and two, in his notes he stated he wanted the highest score possible...that is how he saw the attack, as a game, and the kindergarten children were the most helpless and easily murdered...so he could have achieved the same result with a pump action shotgun or revolvers....

Funny thing... they have those same games in Japan, and they play more of them than we do ....


And this shit never happens there.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It may not be guns but it’s obvious you need something to prove your manhood or you wouldn’t keep calling us “Dick Tiny”.

Naw, I'm just making fun or you need to "compensate" for your shortcomings.

Uh huh. And when you persist with falsehoods like the neighbors saying Nancy was nuts or that they didn’t get anything off Adam’s computer, what are you compensating for?

I’m not telling you anything other than that the specific brand and model of the gun used is immaterial. Lanza could have done just as much damage with a handgun, a shotgun or even a knife.

Shooting up a school is like - if you’ll pardon the metaphor - shooting fish in a barrel. In a situation like that, children are scared shitless and just want to get the **** away from the shooter. In other words, no one is shooting back so he can go from victim to victim and kill at his leisure.

Yeah, I'm sure you guys spend time thinking about the mechanics of this sort of thing.... but an AR15 is a weapon of war, and that place looked like a battlefield when he was done.

Right, because he had plenty of time and no one shooting back.

It’s not thinking about the mechanics, it’s plain old common sense and critical thinking. It would have looked the same if he had used a handgun. It would have looked even worse if he had used a shotgun.

Having been in the military, you know that weapons like the M16 were designed for combat use. Meaning, they were made for putting the most projectiles downrange in the shortest time possible for situations where people are shooting back.
In Sandy Hook, Lanza could have achieved the same results with a handgun and it would have looked just as bloody and horrible. The only difference is, people likely would not be blaming the gun manufacturer if he had.

You wouldn’t be “getting to the truth”, you’d be trying to make the gun company guilty no matter what the truth is.

The gun companies are guilty....

Guilty of what, selling a perfectly legal product with perfectly legal advertising?

this isn't complicated. When they start losing money selling guns to crazy people, watch how fast they get behind licensing, registration and THOROUGH background checks.

Again, the manufacturers have no control over who buys their product. They’re only required to manufacture them according to government guidelines and restrictions.

You are so obsessed with making Nancy out to be insane and directly at fault that you can’t ....e.

Blah, blah, blah... the ***** was arming herself like the Zombies were coming.

Irrelevant. The fact is, they were able to get data off the computer but you can’t acknowledge this. Why?

 

[JoeB131]

Uh huh. And when you persist with falsehoods like the neighbors saying Nancy was nuts or that they didn’t get anything off Adam’s computer, what are you compensating for?

Having to deal with gun nuts trying to excuse what these people did?

Right, because he had plenty of time and no one shooting back.

It’s not thinking about the mechanics, it’s plain old common sense and critical thinking. It would have looked the same if he had used a handgun. It would have looked even worse if he had used a shotgun.

Having been in the military, you know that weapons like the M16 were designed for combat use. Meaning, they were made for putting the most projectiles downrange in the shortest time possible for situations where people are shooting back.
In Sandy Hook, Lanza could have achieved the same results with a handgun and it would have looked just as bloody and horrible. The only difference is, people likely would not be blaming the gun manufacturer if he had.

With a handgun, someone probably could have overpowered him, and he wouldn't have had the same rate of fire. But in my world, he wouldn't have access to handguns, either.

Guilty of what, selling a perfectly legal product with perfectly legal advertising?

Of marketing a dangerous to mentally unstable people... Again, can't wait for that discovery, baby!

Again, the manufacturers have no control over who buys their product. They’re only required to manufacture them according to government guidelines and restrictions.

No, they have a lot of control. IN fact, the gun industry COULD support stronger restrictions. Using a comparison to the Alcohol Industry, they are very active in discouraging underage drinking and drunk driving. The Gun Industry is issuing "Man Cards"

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Uh huh. And when you persist with falsehoods like the neighbors saying Nancy was nuts or that they didn’t get anything off Adam’s computer, what are you compensating for?

Having to deal with gun nuts trying to excuse what these people did?

First, one has nothing to do with the other and it doesn’t answer the question. Second, I’ve made no excuses for anyone, least of all Adam Lanza. As for Nancy, I make no excuses for her because she did nothing to be excused for. She bought her guns legally, taught her sons to shoot - also not against the law- and beyond that, simply did her best to deal with her autistic son’s emotional problems and the added stress of his withdrawing further despite her efforts and then getting murdered by him.

So again, why do you consistently refuse to acknowledge facts?

Right, because he had plenty of time and no one shooting back.

It’s not thinking about the mechanics, it’s plain old common sense and critical thinking. It would have looked the same if he had used a handgun. It would have looked even worse if he had used a shotgun.

Having been in the military, you know that weapons like the M16 were designed for combat use. Meaning, they were made for putting the most projectiles downrange in the shortest time possible for situations where people are shooting back.
In Sandy Hook, Lanza could have achieved the same results with a handgun and it would have looked just as bloody and horrible. The only difference is, people likely would not be blaming the gun manufacturer if he had.

With a handgun, someone probably could have overpowered him, and he wouldn't have had the same rate of fire.

Who would have overpowered him, a kindergartner?

A semiautomatic AR-15 can fire no faster than a semiautomatic handgun and it takes two to three seconds to swap handgun clips. No, if no one could overpower him with the AR then no one could have done so with the handgun either.

But in my world, he wouldn't have access to handguns, either.

In your world Little Catholic Bastards are mind readers with x-ray vision.

Guilty of what, selling a perfectly legal product with perfectly legal advertising?

Of marketing a dangerous to mentally unstable people... Again, can't wait for that discovery, baby!

Nope. That’s not what happened and is not what the case is about and can never be proved.

Again, the manufacturers have no control over who buys their product. They’re only required to manufacture them according to government guidelines and restrictions.

No, they have a lot of control. IN fact, the gun industry COULD support stronger restrictions. Using a comparison to the Alcohol Industry, they are very active in discouraging underage drinking and drunk driving. The Gun Industry is issuing "Man Cards"

Underage drinking and drunk driving are both against the law, purchasing a firearm and plinking at targets to stroke your male ego is not.

 

[JoeB131]

First, one has nothing to do with the other and it doesn’t answer the question. Second, I’ve made no excuses for anyone, least of all Adam Lanza. As for Nancy, I make no excuses for her because she did nothing to be excused for. She bought her guns legally, taught her sons to shoot - also not against the law- and beyond that, simply did her best to deal with her autistic son’s emotional problems and the added stress of his withdrawing further despite her efforts and then getting murdered by him.

So again, why do you consistently refuse to acknowledge facts?

Here are the facts.

The ***** was crazy.
She raised a crazy son.
Thanks to Remington, she stocked the house with enough guns to fight off the Zombies
26 people died needlessly.

We can't hold her or her son accountable, but man, we can totally **** over Remington...

Who would have overpowered him, a kindergartner?

A semiautomatic AR-15 can fire no faster than a semiautomatic handgun and it takes two to three seconds to swap handgun clips. No, if no one could overpower him with the AR then no one could have done so with the handgun either.

Probably any of the adult teachers...

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

First, one has nothing to do with the other and it doesn’t answer the question. Second, I’ve made no excuses for anyone, least of all Adam Lanza. As for Nancy, I make no excuses for her because she did nothing to be excused for. She bought her guns legally, taught her sons to shoot - also not against the law- and beyond that, simply did her best to deal with her autistic son’s emotional problems and the added stress of his withdrawing further despite her efforts and then getting murdered by him.

So again, why do you consistently refuse to acknowledge facts?

Here are the facts.

The ***** was crazy.
She raised a crazy son.
Thanks to Remington, she stocked the house with enough guns to fight off the Zombies
26 people died needlessly.

The only thing you got right here is that twenty six people died needlessly. The rest is opinion or simply not true.

So, again, why do you consistently deny facts? Namely, that neighbors did not say Nancy was crazy and that they did get data off Adam’s computer?

Oh, and the only Remington weapon Lanza had with him was the AR-15. The rest were Glock and Sig Sauer handguns and a Saiga shotgun. So Remington did not help her “stock up”. Also, the two handguns he had also had thirty round clips like the AR, which means he could have done just as much damage with them.

We can't hold her or her son accountable, but man, we can totally **** over Remington...

For what, selling a legal firearm?

Who would have overpowered him, a kindergartner?

A semiautomatic AR-15 can fire no faster than a semiautomatic handgun and it takes two to three seconds to swap handgun clips. No, if no one could overpower him with the AR then no one could have done so with the handgun either.

Probably any of the adult teachers...

So why didn’t they?

 

[JoeB131]

So, again, why do you consistently deny facts? Namely, that neighbors did not say Nancy was crazy and that they did get data off Adam’s computer?

Actually, they said she was a nutty prepper... those people are nuts.

Corky, quit slamming your head against the table...you'll damage your helmet. Do you have any new material?

So why didn’t they?

Because he had a ******* assault rifle...

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So, again, why do you consistently deny facts? Namely, that neighbors did not say Nancy was crazy and that they did get data off Adam’s computer?

Actually, they said she was a nutty prepper... those people are nuts.

No, they did not. They said she was a gun enthusiast. And they had no idea she was stocking food; that wasn’t discovered until after the shooting. The only person who knew of Nancy’s prepper tendencies was her sister in law.

Corky, quit slamming your head against the table...you'll damage your helmet. Do you have any new material?

Do you? If you would just come up with some new lies, falsehoods, fabrications and assumptions, you might see different responses from me.

So why didn’t they?

Because he had a ******* assault rifle...

Being familiar with firearms as you claim to be, explain to me how someone with a semiautomatic rifle with a thirty round clip is harder to take down than someone with a semiauto handgun with a thirty round clip.

 

[JoeB131]

No, they did not. They said she was a gun enthusiast. And they had no idea she was stocking food; that wasn’t discovered until after the shooting. The only person who knew of Nancy’s prepper tendencies was her sister in law.

You can usually tell who the nuts are.

Being familiar with firearms as you claim to be, explain to me how someone with a semiautomatic rifle with a thirty round clip is harder to take down than someone with a semiauto handgun with a thirty round clip.

Well, there's the intimidation factor. Higher rate of fire. More power to each shot... stuff like that. I might take my chances with a nut with a handgun, but an AR-15, no way.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, they did not. They said she was a gun enthusiast. And they had no idea she was stocking food; that wasn’t discovered until after the shooting. The only person who knew of Nancy’s prepper tendencies was her sister in law.

You can usually tell who the nuts are.

Irrelevant. The neighbors never said anything about her being a prepper.

Being familiar with firearms as you claim to be, explain to me how someone with a semiautomatic rifle with a thirty round clip is harder to take down than someone with a semiauto handgun with a thirty round clip.

Well, there's the intimidation factor.

Only people who know nothing about firearms would be intimidated by an AR-15 but not a handgun.

Higher rate of fire.

Wrong. One semiautomatic is no faster than any other semiautomatic. The fire rate of both the AR and the Glock are limited by the same thing: how fast you can pull the trigger.

More power to each shot... stuff like that. I might take my chances with a nut with a handgun, but an AR-15, no way.

That’s only because you’re intimidated by the AR’s appearance.

A few things to consider:

1) The AR-15 has a higher firepower but any expert will tell you that the AR or M16 was not necessarily designed to kill. It was designed to incapacitate the victim on the battlefield so his buddies would try to save him and when they did, BAM.
You were probably taught this when you were in the Army yourself.

2) The AR was designed for combat situations in the open where the targets are say, fifty yards or more away. Therefore, it has no advantage over the handgun in close quarters such as a school shooting.

3) Both the AR and the Glock were designed for shredding flesh and in close quarters, being a larger caliber, the Glock will do just as much, if not more, damage.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

No, they did not. They said she was a gun enthusiast. And they had no idea she was stocking food; that wasn’t discovered until after the shooting. The only person who knew of Nancy’s prepper tendencies was her sister in law.

You can usually tell who the nuts are.

Irrelevant. The neighbors never said anything about her being a prepper.

Being familiar with firearms as you claim to be, explain to me how someone with a semiautomatic rifle with a thirty round clip is harder to take down than someone with a semiauto handgun with a thirty round clip.

Well, there's the intimidation factor.

Only people who know nothing about firearms would be intimidated by an AR-15 but not a handgun.

Higher rate of fire.

Wrong. One semiautomatic is no faster than any other semiautomatic. The fire rate of both the AR and the Glock are limited by the same thing: how fast you can pull the trigger.

More power to each shot... stuff like that. I might take my chances with a nut with a handgun, but an AR-15, no way.

That’s only because you’re intimidated by the AR’s appearance.

A few things to consider:

1) The AR-15 has a higher firepower but any expert will tell you that the AR or M16 was not necessarily designed to kill. It was designed to incapacitate the victim on the battlefield so his buddies would try to save him and when they did, BAM.
You were probably taught this when you were in the Army yourself.

2) The AR was designed for combat situations in the open where the targets are say, fifty yards or more away. Therefore, it has no advantage over the handgun in close quarters such as a school shooting.

3) Both the AR and the Glock were designed for shredding flesh and in close quarters, being a larger caliber, the Glock will do just as much, if not more, damage.

How come soldiers don't all just use hand guns out on the battlefield then??

Since it isn't much difference between a rifle and a pistol.....

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, they did not. They said she was a gun enthusiast. And they had no idea she was stocking food; that wasn’t discovered until after the shooting. The only person who knew of Nancy’s prepper tendencies was her sister in law.

You can usually tell who the nuts are.

Irrelevant. The neighbors never said anything about her being a prepper.

Being familiar with firearms as you claim to be, explain to me how someone with a semiautomatic rifle with a thirty round clip is harder to take down than someone with a semiauto handgun with a thirty round clip.

Well, there's the intimidation factor.

Only people who know nothing about firearms would be intimidated by an AR-15 but not a handgun.

Higher rate of fire.

Wrong. One semiautomatic is no faster than any other semiautomatic. The fire rate of both the AR and the Glock are limited by the same thing: how fast you can pull the trigger.

More power to each shot... stuff like that. I might take my chances with a nut with a handgun, but an AR-15, no way.

That’s only because you’re intimidated by the AR’s appearance.

A few things to consider:

1) The AR-15 has a higher firepower but any expert will tell you that the AR or M16 was not necessarily designed to kill. It was designed to incapacitate the victim on the battlefield so his buddies would try to save him and when they did, BAM.
You were probably taught this when you were in the Army yourself.

2) The AR was designed for combat situations in the open where the targets are say, fifty yards or more away. Therefore, it has no advantage over the handgun in close quarters such as a school shooting.

3) Both the AR and the Glock were designed for shredding flesh and in close quarters, being a larger caliber, the Glock will do just as much, if not more, damage.

How come soldiers don't all just use hand guns out on the battlefield then??

Since it isn't much difference between a rifle and a pistol.....

Read my post again .

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How come soldiers don't all just use hand guns out on the battlefield then??

Since it isn't much difference between a rifle and a pistol.....

A rifle is much more accurate at any distance. A pistol is really only useful at fairly close range.

In a school shooting scenario, a pistol might be more effective, since such a scenario happens at fairly close range. On a battlefield, your targets are usually much farther away, nearly impossible to hit with a pistol.

 

[JoeB131]

That’s only because you’re intimidated by the AR’s appearance.

No, I'm intimidated by it's performance, having fired the M16 hundreds of times over an 11 year period.

A rifle is much more accurate at any distance. A pistol is really only useful at fairly close range.

In a school shooting scenario, a pistol might be more effective, since such a scenario happens at fairly close range. On a battlefield, your targets are usually much farther away, nearly impossible to hit with a pistol.

You spend a lot of time thinking about what might be more effective in a School Shooting Scenario, Mormon Bob?

Point is, he didn't use a pistol. He used an AR-15. He killed 26 people. The real high body count mass shootings seem to involve these kids of weapons.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That’s only because you’re intimidated by the AR’s appearance.

No, I'm intimidated by it's performance, having fired the M16 hundreds of times over an 11 year period.

Which is frankly why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp these distinctions. You know as well as anyone that a Glock in the close quarters of a school shooting will kill a child just as efficiently as an AR will. Given this, I can only assume that the aesthetics of the AR-15 is a factor in your conclusions.

A rifle is much more accurate at any distance. A pistol is really only useful at fairly close range.

In a school shooting scenario, a pistol might be more effective, since such a scenario happens at fairly close range. On a battlefield, your targets are usually much farther away, nearly impossible to hit with a pistol.

You spend a lot of time thinking about what might be more effective in a School Shooting Scenario, Mormon Bob?

Point is, he didn't use a pistol. He used an AR-15. He killed 26 people. The real high body count mass shootings seem to involve these kids of weapons.

No one is disputing that he used an AR-15 or what the body count was. The question is whether or not he could have achieved the same results with a handgun. In close quarters, I say yes.

A handgun is easier and faster to bring to bear on the target in close quarters. It is precisely why room clearing is almost always done with handguns, short stock shotguns and MPGs.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, I'm intimidated by it's performance, having fired the M16 hundreds of times over an 11 year period.

One cannot read that, without being reminded of the pathetic, Gillettized *****, Gersh Kuntzman, and his ridiculous article about how traumatic he found it to fire an AR-15.

If you're that intimidated by firing a medium-powered rifle, one has to wonder what you'd think of firing a real high-powered rifle, such as one suitable for deer hunting, or a shotgun.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, I'm intimidated by it's performance, having fired the M16 hundreds of times over an 11 year period.

Which is frankly why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp these distinctions. You know as well as anyone that a Glock in the close quarters of a school shooting will kill a child just as efficiently as an AR will. Given this, I can only assume that the aesthetics of the AR-15 is a factor in your conclusions.

I think what you're having trouble understanding is that JoeB131 is almost certainly lying about the experience he claims to have had in the military, and with firearms. If he really had the experience that he claims, then he'd know that the AR-15 and the M-16 are nowhere near as intimidating to actually handle and fire as quite a few other common firearms; and if he's really so much of a Kuntzman that an M-16 would be that intimidating to him, then he would never have lasted very long in the Army.