Like Tree279Likes

Thread: 18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

  1. #551
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Poconos, Pa
    Posts
    796

    Default

    so lets say, we ban assault AR-type rifles and high capacity magazine clips..as the media calls them and limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds..

    Now here is a very realistic what if situation..

    *How long does it take to quick change a magazine? 3-4 seconds maybe less with training technique..
    *How hard is it to carry multiple weapons? 2-3 handguns, a rifle with a few of those 10 round magazine clips, and maybe a shotgun.
    *How hard is it to go to a range and practice quick magazine changes? (in the army, our 1sg used to make us go through quick magazine changes without taking our weapon off our shoulder and eyes off the target area before we could eat) and quick target acquisition, as well as general target practice?
    *How hard is it to pick a soft target full of non-trained civilians? like a movie theater, or school?

    See what I'm saying? So when the govt bans all the scary black guns..and there is still a school shooting..then what do we do?

    Do we ban all weapons that can hold more then 1 round? do we outlaw range time? limit ammo purchase? at what point will it stop?

    So then we ban all guns..then someone builds a bomb in a uhaul truck? So do we ban the purchase of fertilizer? do we require background checks before renting a uhaul to move your home?

    So instead of fixing the root issue, which is how we prosecute criminals, and how we handle mental health issues in this country, we attack guns.

    Why don't we attack alcohol, or cars when someone is killed in a car accident? Why don't we attack Apple when someone is proven to have been texting/talking while driving? I hate to harp on this but no one can or will give a thoughtful realistic answer..Well cell phones don't kill people, the person was talking/texting...guess what? not 1 single gun killed any of those kids..that lunatic killed those kids. just like the irresponsible teenager texting on his/her cell phone killed him/herself and whoever else.
    That bottle of jim beam didn't kill that minivan full of a family going home for Christmas..That person who drank it and then chose to drive killed them..

    Why is it the gun's fault when innocent people from middle class/wealthy communities are hurt/killed?

    Why is it not the gun's fault when kids from a city below the poverty line when a turf war erupts and they kill each other?

    See what I'm saying?

    This is what needs to happen...

    ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE who is found to be directly involved with the use of a firearm in a crime weather it be murder, robbery, rape etc needs to be held accountable...If Adam Lanza's mother was alive, she should be in prison now as an accomplice to murder. That woman who bought the guns for the nutcase who killed the 2 firefighters needs to be in prison as an accomplice to murder. If you are a gun store owner and you don't follow the appropriate laws regarding background checks, you need to be in jail as an accomplice to murder. If you sell a firearm to another person without going through an appropriate background check ( I bought a muzzleloader online from a private party, and he needed my information to run a background check through a licensed arms dealer.) then you are an accomplice to murder. If you have guns in your home, and children around and those guns aren't locked, secured, unloaded, and separated from the ammo source, and your kids use them, guess what? Accomplice. Now that that issue is squared away...

    The people who commit these crimes, often times they commit suicide because they are slimy scum of the earth who can't face the music..but I digress. There needs to be swift justice. How long has the batman shooter been waiting for trial? I'm talking...commit the crime...less then a month you are sentenced to no less then life in prison. no waiting around, no interviews, no E! true Hollywood story crap.

    And lastly...We need to improve the mental health treatment that is available in this country. No, That does not mean shoving pills down someone's throat until they are a vegetable. Therapy, treatment, short and long term.


    once we accomplish that...then I will be willing to ban assault rifles and high capacity magazine clips.


    And BTW, doesn't CT and NY have some of the toughest gun laws, and assault weapon bans?

    Just asking..
    DeputyMarshal, RFDACM02 and Chenzo like this.

  2. #552
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigGriffC12 View Post
    Why are we not banning cell phones? How many people died today because of texting/ driving? Why are we not in an uproar over that issue? Why are we not pushing for bans on alcohol and tobacco? How many people died from smoking related cancers? Or drunk drivers/alcohol related illnesses? How many violent crimes were committed today using something other then a gun? I can't understand why people aren't jumping on the ban cell phones, cigarettes, and beer?
    How many people have used cell phones, cigarettes, and beer to kill a couple dozen folks at a theater or skill? DUI programs and education have reduced the incidence of DUI's significantly in the last 20 years. Same with smoking cigarettes.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigGriffC12 View Post
    There are so much deeper problems here besides guns.. And everyone here knows it. And if you are on the pro gun side you are labeled as a gun nut, lunatic, uneducated, and heartless because how could you not want to prevent further deaths of innocent children from happening.
    Actually I label people gun lunatics because anyone who discusses ideas relating to guns is immediately labeled "completely anti-gun."

    Quote Originally Posted by BigGriffC12 View Post
    I just don't understand. We can what if the situation to death....
    True. However, other nations have gun laws with significantly lower amounts firearm homicides.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #553
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    That was my point to SC with a previous post.

    If he, and the anti-gun folks are so concerned about kids dying from being shot, why aren't they just as concerned with the causes of child death that are much larger than shootings ever will be. Why are they not in an uproar demanding bans and legislation regulating pools, bikes, 4-wheelers, trampolines, bath tubs and the many other ways that kids die every damn day.

    He didn't answer.
    Yes I did numbnuts. You're just too stupid to understand it.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #554
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigGriffC12 View Post
    so lets say, we ban assault AR-type rifles and high capacity magazine clips..as the media calls them and limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds..

    Now here is a very realistic what if situation..

    *How long does it take to quick change a magazine? 3-4 seconds maybe less with training technique..
    *How hard is it to carry multiple weapons? 2-3 handguns, a rifle with a few of those 10 round magazine clips, and maybe a shotgun.
    *How hard is it to go to a range and practice quick magazine changes? (in the army, our 1sg used to make us go through quick magazine changes without taking our weapon off our shoulder and eyes off the target area before we could eat) and quick target acquisition, as well as general target practice?
    *How hard is it to pick a soft target full of non-trained civilians? like a movie theater, or school?

    See what I'm saying? So when the govt bans all the scary black guns..and there is still a school shooting..then what do we do?
    And here is another completely realistic scenario. The person armed with only 10 round magazines fumbles while reloading or rearming themselves and potential victims either have time to flee or overpower the gunman. That has happened in several cases.

    See what I'm saying?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #555
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,282

    Default

    I don't know. It's your scenario. Not mine. I stated a group of folks armed with AR-15's wouldn't stand a chance against the modern US military. You're the one that has concocted the contractor scenario.

    I disagree and history has proven you are wrong. The difference between Afghanistan, Viet Nam, and the current United States is the citizens of this country have far more financial resources than either of those countries and the firearms, ammunition and other supplies here in the hands of civilians would make the rebels in those countries drool with envy.


    Here's the difference. The Russians (like us) were not willing to attack the civilian populations because there was a desire to gain the support of them at some point in time. We haven't utterly wiped them out because we have a desire and policy to pursue those who are specifically our enemy. That wouldn't be the case here. Since the civilians are the armed combatants. Please detail for us your extensive personal experience with insurgency and guerilla warfare. I can't wait. One last point. The Afghans, the Vietnamese, and those that fought us in Iraq all had support from outside their country either in direct arms or money to finance their rebellion. The American colonials had significant assistance from the French to the point where many historians believe they would have failed were it not for that assistance. Which outside nation is going going to aid this militia force and how are they going to supply them?

    So you believe in order to control a pocket of rebels inside the United States the military would target the entire populated area where they were operating out of and obliterate an entire city to defeat them? Golly, that would be a swell way to convince people of your good will and hopes to rebuild the United States by killing innocent civilian non-combatants and causing billions of dollars of collateral damage. Not ALL civilians will be armed combatants
    if there is a revolt here anymore than all civilians were combatants in Viet Nam or Afghanistan or even in Europe in WW2.

    I don't claim to be an expert on insurgency, but I guarantee I know more about it than you do about firearm/s nomenclature and firearm's law. I have done extensive reading on it and spoken to veterans from both of those wars and WW2 who have experience with insurgents, rebels, or freedom fighters depending on whose side they were on.

    Again you are delusional if you don't believe there are any number of nations that would step up to supplya revolution against the United States government. I would bet there would have a pipeline of supplies coming right up through Mexico.


    I can also point to despots that have come to power via the military might of their nation. In this case, the troops wouldn't be the invaders.

    Again this assumes that the US military in direct violation of the law, would follow an unlawful order and begin to murder US citizens.


    Yawn.....

    Yeah, I agree you diversionary, uneducated, nonsensical answers are getting boring.


    Your writings prove my point.

    Actually, if defending my Rights and Freedoms make me look paranoid in your eyes I am okay with that. I refuse to be a new Neville Chamberlain and be an appeaser. It doesn't take much to see you as a British sympathizer if you had lived during the revolution.

    Just admit you are an anti-gun person and stop playing games.

    Lol.

    Yes, it is funny what you believe and yet can't defend. Too bad it is funny in a pathetic sad clown way.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 01-17-2013 at 05:08 PM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  6. #556
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Poconos, Pa
    Posts
    796

    Default

    I think the same reason why no one has attacked us in recent times is because of the fact they know how many guns there are in America, and how many people are willing to use them.

  7. #557
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    And here is another completely realistic scenario. The person armed with only 10 round magazines fumbles while reloading or rearming themselves and potential victims either have time to flee or overpower the gunman. That has happened in several cases.

    See what I'm saying?
    And once again, it would have made absolutely no difference at Sandy Hook. Who was going to charge and subdue the gunman? Elementary school aged children? Teachers that were already either moving their students to hide or escape? WHO?

    The truth is most people do one of 2 things, hide or flee. Frankly, unless they flee around a corner, or out of a building there is no way they can run fast enough or far enough to outrun a bullet fired from any modern firearm in the mere seconds it takes to recover from fumbling or dropping a magazine.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  8. #558
    Forum Member
    HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    509

    Default

    A few years ago, I had some extra spending money and purchased a bunch of ammo. Then for fun I decided I wanted to see how fast I could expend all of that ammunition. Here is what I had:
    -Glock model 22 (40cal full frame pistol)
    -Taurus PT92AF (9mm full frame "1911 style" pistol)
    -Ruger Mark II (22cal target pistol with bull barrel)
    I have 4 - 10 round magazines for each pistol, but I only used 2 for the. I started by holding the Glock in my right hand and both other pistols in holsters (9mm on the right, Ruger on the left set up for cross draw). The vest I was wearing held the 5 magazines and the holster each held one outside the gun. I also had a table to my right that had the boxes of bullets. I was shooting at a 3' x 6' cardboard target at 10 yards. I only used my right hand to shoot as dual wielding looks neat, but sucks for accuracy.

    I was able, on the third attempt, to empty all of my rounds in under 90 seconds and hit the target 85+ times. I am not military, police, or otherwise trained. I just spent about half an hour practicing. If you want to pay for the ammo, I would do it again to show you that it is possible by an untrained person to expend that amount of ammunition somewhat accurately in a very short amount of time without "assault weapons", high capacity "magazine clips", or any other aides. Just count to 10, switch clips before the next round is expended, and there is no interruption. Yes the clips end up on the ground and I was a little less gentle than I should have been when putting the glock on the table.

    I am not a nut job or mentally unstable. I just got bored on day, went to a safe shooting area, spent half and hour and about $300 to see if I could. When I told my best firend about it, he tried as well with my 9mm and Glock and his Springfield XD40. He was able to go faster than me as he is an officer in the Navy and got to practice at it more than I did.

    Your counting on the shooter having to take a lunch break to change clips allowing others to rush is a bunch of nonsense. if you read the reports (at least the ones I have seen), most of the rushes occured when the shooter was using a firearm they were not familiar with, one that jammed, or a couple people were taken down during the rush.

  9. #559
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    How many people have used cell phones, cigarettes, and beer to kill a couple dozen folks at a theater or skill? DUI programs and education have reduced the incidence of DUI's significantly in the last 20 years. Same with smoking cigarettes.

    So it makes you feel better that it would probably take a day or two for drunk drivers to kill as many folks across this country as were killed at the theater in 20 minutes? Because of that it's not as big of a problem? Because they die one, two or three at a time in many different places as compared to few and far between 20 fatality events we should be less concerned? Here's the difference. The next mass shooting likely won't be for several months yet drunk drivers, as an example, will likely kill as many folks in this country as were killed in that movie thearter or school day after day after day after day after day until the next mass shooting, and then will continue after that in the same pattern. And because of that, in the long run, the total will be much greater than the combination of all the mass shootings over the same time period.

    It's the same with kids drowning. It's the same with kids and bike fatalities. Or most other ways that kids and adults will die. They won't die in high-profile mass events but one here, three there, two here ... and in the end the totals will be much higher than mass shootings by far.

    Your anti-gun groups seem to like to focus on the rare, high profile events. I guess I am far more concerned with the everyday events. That's where the totals that we need to be concerned about come from.



    Actually I label people gun lunatics because anyone who discusses ideas relating to guns is immediately labeled "completely anti-gun."

    As has been posted, using your semi-automatic criteria would, or could include 3/4 of the hunting rifles on the market. That's anti-gun. Limiting clip size when in all honesty, large capicity clips and magazines are rarely a problem. Yes, that's anti-gun. The fact is you do want to limit law abiding citizens a right to guns and clips that, even though in some folks eyes they don't need, they have a perfect right to buy, own, sell and transfer to thier famalies with some, but a reasonable amount of government oversight and regulation per our Constitution. Yes, that is anti-gun.


    True. However, other nations have gun laws with significantly lower amounts firearm homicides.
    And reducing the number of guns are not going to change the fact that much of that has to do with our culture. Folks will just kill in different ways. And you have done nothing to solve the problem but you have abriged the rights of law abiding Americans.

    And yes, to me, that is an issue.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 01-17-2013 at 02:20 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  10. #560
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    And here is another completely realistic scenario. The person armed with only 10 round magazines fumbles while reloading or rearming themselves and potential victims either have time to flee or overpower the gunman. That has happened in several cases.

    See what I'm saying?
    Why wouldn't they drop the gun and select another loaded one their carrying, as has been the case in all but one of the highlighted incidents? At Columbine one shooter using a 1994 AWB compliant carbine reloaded at least 10 times, firing 170 rounds, apparently the kids didn't know to go for him while he reloaded?

  11. #561
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    All but 1 was in a location that none of the victims had the ability to defend themselves. The average person isn't going to bum rush the shooter. So magazine capacity really isn't an issue when there really isn't any retaliatory threat. The shooter in reality has as much time as they need to change out magazines. In some cases, completely reload them.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  12. #562
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    How many people have used cell phones, cigarettes, and beer to kill a couple dozen folks at a theater or skill? DUI programs and education have reduced the incidence of DUI's significantly in the last 20 years. Same with smoking cigarettes.

    Violent crime has significantly reduced in the last 20 years as well. Here's some of those things called FACTS to back it up.

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/23...-last-20-years

    http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/01/1...d-gun-violence

    http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/83...e-has-declined

    http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/83...n-has-declined

    Funny how you neglect to include something that doesn't fit your agenda.
    SPFDRum, RFDACM02 and BULL321 like this.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  13. #563
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    He didn't answer.
    Not very shocking though, is it? He hasn't really given a straight answer on anything in this topic. Especially when you present him with facts.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  14. #564
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    No law is going to prevent criminals from acquiring guns illegally and without paperwork. You are delusional beyond all hope if you believe otherwise.
    Therein lies the problem... The anti-gun crowd doesn't want to listen to the fact that criminals are criminals for a reason, and they don't give a sh|t about the law. Even when presented with examples (prohibition, DUI's, war on drugs, etc) they still think limiting firearms (in any way) is the solution.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  15. #565
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Therein lies the problem... The anti-gun crowd doesn't want to listen to the fact that criminals are criminals for a reason, and they don't give a sh|t about the law. Even when presented with examples (prohibition, DUI's, war on drugs, etc) they still think limiting firearms (in any way) is the solution.
    Brother, I agree with you and FyredUp on this one, except that I fear that if we don't give something tangible, we'll all be labelled gun nuts, whacko's and the like and end up losing far more. Agreeing to close gun loopholes is so obvious it doesn't even count as agreement.

    Therefore, I fail to see any real fear in gun registration in that in the end most of us agree that the government won't likely be rounding up previously sold guns. While I think it's not all they think it'll be, it will be something tangible that they can feel good about and does the least to those of us who plan on remaining law abiding citizens. I'd far rather register my firearms than give up my magazine capacity, as I understand the difference between shooting during a "fight or flight" moment and television action heroes.

  16. #566
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Brother, I agree with you and FyredUp on this one, except that I fear that if we don't give something tangible, we'll all be labelled gun nuts, whacko's and the like and end up losing far more. Agreeing to close gun loopholes is so obvious it doesn't even count as agreement.

    Therefore, I fail to see any real fear in gun registration in that in the end most of us agree that the government won't likely be rounding up previously sold guns. While I think it's not all they think it'll be, it will be something tangible that they can feel good about and does the least to those of us who plan on remaining law abiding citizens. I'd far rather register my firearms than give up my magazine capacity, as I understand the difference between shooting during a "fight or flight" moment and television action heroes.
    Give up something tangible, protected by our Country's Constitution, sure, but with the following to the others:

    1st-you are only allowed to receive your news from 1 approved news source, and must be subject to a background check prior to checking a book out of the library.
    3rd-you must agree to house 2 military members for their 2 week reserve time with no compensation
    4th-you must submit to 1 unannounced government search of your property, with the possibility of them seizing anything they deem dangerous.
    5th-the government is allowed to seize any property they feel necessary with out compensation.

    And the list can go on.....seems to be a slippery slope.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  17. #567
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Give up something tangible, protected by our Country's Constitution, sure, but with the following to the others:

    1st-you are only allowed to receive your news from 1 approved news source, and must be subject to a background check prior to checking a book out of the library.
    3rd-you must agree to house 2 military members for their 2 week reserve time with no compensation
    4th-you must submit to 1 unannounced government search of your property, with the possibility of them seizing anything they deem dangerous.
    5th-the government is allowed to seize any property they feel necessary with out compensation.

    And the list can go on.....seems to be a slippery slope.
    I understand the slippery slope, but those things are truly fairly unrealistic. It seems that both republicans and Democrats have plenty to hide, thus searches and seizures likely won't become so easy. We are the government and by voting we can change who's in office and the which way the wind blows (albeit too late for some things). In today's social media world we should have no issue keeping track of the politicians who are supporting this deterioration of our rights, as well as those voting to delay or tack on pork to Sandy relief while voting for their own raises.

    Again, I'm no fan of any gun control measures, but I'm trying to understand the huge percentage of people that have no interest in guns and those that still believe we can all have a group hug and never clench another fist in anger. The fact is, they don't or won't see our points and if we all draw lines in the sand, some one will win, the other will lose. I prefer not to see it to that extreme given the cost of losing. I've yet to see a rational response to how registration adversely affects law abiding gun owners. Sorry if I think the gun grabbing argument is unrealistic, I just have no faith in my fellow man's ability to conspire to keep secrets beyond 3 or 4 people.

  18. #568
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    I wish I could be more confident about the no seizure part, but our government, republican and democrat, is so self serving and out of touch with the normal family, it's mind boggling. I'm a huge supporter of term limits and an end to life time benefits. But that's a different subject....
    As far as registration, no way. New Orleans, Katrina; having an address with a registered gun allowed for "no-knock" warrant searches and confiscation a hundreds of legally owned fire arms. All proven to be illegal in the courts, yet hundreds still have yet to receive their property back.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  19. #569
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    At least unlike your hero SC you are openly an anti-gun person.
    Wow, so based on your replies....no rights will be taken away. Imagine that. Gun purchasers just have to do more paperwork.

    Thanks, your very helpful.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  20. #570
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigGriffC12 View Post
    ...
    This is what needs to happen...

    ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE who is found to be directly involved with the use of a firearm in a crime weather it be murder, robbery, rape etc needs to be held accountable...If Adam Lanza's mother was alive, she should be in prison now as an accomplice to murder. That woman who bought the guns for the nutcase who killed the 2 firefighters needs to be in prison as an accomplice to murder. If you are a gun store owner and you don't follow the appropriate laws regarding background checks, you need to be in jail as an accomplice to murder. If you sell a firearm to another person without going through an appropriate background check ( I bought a muzzleloader online from a private party, and he needed my information to run a background check through a licensed arms dealer.) then you are an accomplice to murder. If you have guns in your home, and children around and those guns aren't locked, secured, unloaded, and separated from the ammo source, and your kids use them, guess what? Accomplice. Now that that issue is squared away...

    The people who commit these crimes, often times they commit suicide because they are slimy scum of the earth who can't face the music..but I digress. There needs to be swift justice. How long has the batman shooter been waiting for trial? I'm talking...commit the crime...less then a month you are sentenced to no less then life in prison. no waiting around, no interviews, no E! true Hollywood story crap.

    And lastly...We need to improve the mental health treatment that is available in this country. No, That does not mean shoving pills down someone's throat until they are a vegetable. Therapy, treatment, short and long term...
    These are all great suggestions and should be put in place. Of course, none of these steps would have made a difference in the Newtown shooting.

    All the stuff about after a crime has been committed with a firearm is simply after the fact.

    All should still happen....but how to stop the crime beforehand is the question.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  21. #571
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Wow, so based on your replies....no rights will be taken away. Imagine that. Gun purchasers just have to do more paperwork.

    Thanks, your very helpful.
    Dude I am laughing my a z z off at you. I blew you completely out of the water by actually KNOWING the law regarding fully autmatic weapons and this is the best you have in reply?

    Education on this topic might actually help you not look like as big a fool as you did here.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  22. #572
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    I disagree and history has proven you are wrong. The difference between Afghanistan, Viet Nam, and the current United States is the citizens of this country have far more financial resources than either of those countries and the firearms, ammunition and other supplies here in the hands of civilians would make the rebels in those countries drool with envy.
    Eventually they will run out or won't be able to keep up with an entity buying ammo by the truckload. The government will have manufacturers turning out more bullets in an hour than most sport shooters can produce in a week. Then there is the amount of components that will no longer be available making all those AR-15's good for wall decorations and not much else.

    So you believe in order to control a pocket of rebels inside the United States the military would target the entire populated area where they were operating out of and obliterate an entire city to defeat them? Golly, that would be a swell way to convince people of your good will and hopes to rebuild the United States by killing innocent civilian non-combatants and causing billions of dollars of collateral damage. Not ALL civilians will be armed combatants
    if there is a revolt here anymore than all civilians were combatants in Viet Nam or Afghanistan or even in Europe in WW2.

    Despots and tyrants are not concerned about the matters you discuss. IE. Hussein's gassing the Kurds. Pol Pot wreaking havoc on his civilian opposition. You should read more about them. Yes, I do believe they will target entire pockets of the civilian population. There are numerous examples of that type of force being used.

    I don't claim to be an expert on insurgency, but I guarantee I know more about it than you do about firearm/s nomenclature and firearm's law. I have done extensive reading on it and spoken to veterans from both of those wars and WW2 who have experience with insurgents, rebels, or freedom fighters depending on whose side they were on.
    You should have stopped where you claim you aren't an expert. The history of despots is contradictory to what you claim will happen.

    Again you are delusional if you don't believe there are any number of nations that would step up to supplya revolution against the United States government. I would bet there would have a pipeline of supplies coming right up through Mexico.
    I bet there would be a capable military blocking those pipelines with considerably more secured borders. I can easily see a border fence(s) built with a minefield in between them ala the Iron Curtain in Berlin. Before you doubt the ability of the government to construct such a large project I suggest you drive on the Interstate Highway System portion that is nearest your home. I doubt many nations would run to the aid of a rebellion that claimed to believe in democracy or liberty. The only nation that has done such a thing in recent years is the US. I also doubt those nations would risk the chance of incurring the wrath of the US military might that is now being controlled by a tyrant or group of tyrants.

    Again this assumes that the US military in direct violation of the law, would follow an unlawful order and begin to murder US citizens.
    That is the assumption of the scenario put forth by those who believe they're owning an AR-15 is the last hope in case that occurs. The history of tyrants is they do exactly what they want whether or not the law allows it. Again, you should read up more on this topic. You must have a different viewpoint on tyrants. The one's I've read about are pretty cruel in the way they seize power and the way they keep it. You must know a kindler gentler type of tyrant.

    Yeah, I agree you diversionary, uneducated, nonsensical answers are getting boring.
    Funny you make that claim. I detailed my rationale numerous times. Your response was that I'm completely anti-gun. I've asked several times for you to prove that I've advocated eliminating private firearms ownership. You've yet to put forth an example.

    Actually, if defending my Rights and Freedoms make me look paranoid in your eyes I am okay with that. I refuse to be a new Neville Chamberlain and be an appeaser. It doesn't take much to see you as a British sympathizer if you had lived during the revolution.
    More paranoia from planet wingnuttia.

    Just admit you are an anti-gun person and stop playing games.
    Just admit it you lack the ability to read and comprehend.

    Yes, it is funny what you believe and yet can't defend. Too bad it is funny in a pathetic sad clown way.
    I've defended it numerous times. You've made several wild claims completely unsubstantiated by any facts. I have to say it's been fascinating watching you dissolve into rants and name calling. It really proves your arguments lack substance when confronted with facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    And once again, it would have made absolutely no difference at Sandy Hook. Who was going to charge and subdue the gunman? Elementary school aged children? Teachers that were already either moving their students to hide or escape? WHO?
    Is this the only incident of this type? I agree the teachers at Sandy Hook were concerned with their students. Are teachers the only adults present at a school? Are there not counselors, janitors, or other administrative staff? In fact, the principal was killed by Lanza as she was running towards him. Every school my kids attended had a number of adults present that were not engaged in teaching in the classroom. Were yours different.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    The truth is most people do one of 2 things, hide or flee. Frankly, unless they flee around a corner, or out of a building there is no way they can run fast enough or far enough to outrun a bullet fired from any modern firearm in the mere seconds it takes to recover from fumbling or dropping a magazine.
    Yet that happened with Jared Loughner and Kip Kinkel. It's becoming very obvious you are not as well versed on this topic as you claim or you would know that. Your comment about outrunning bullets is precisely why the issue of homicide via firearms is a different argument than homicide via knives or baseball bats. Thanks for bringing it up.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-18-2013 at 11:42 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #573
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigGriffC12 View Post
    I think the same reason why no one has attacked us in recent times is because of the fact they know how many guns there are in America, and how many people are willing to use them.
    Or it could be we have the most powerful military that can reach back to their homeland. IE. 9/11
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  24. #574
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    A few years ago, I had some extra spending money and purchased a bunch of ammo. Then for fun I decided I wanted to see how fast I could expend all of that ammunition. Here is what I had:
    -Glock model 22 (40cal full frame pistol)
    -Taurus PT92AF (9mm full frame "1911 style" pistol)
    -Ruger Mark II (22cal target pistol with bull barrel)
    I have 4 - 10 round magazines for each pistol, but I only used 2 for the. I started by holding the Glock in my right hand and both other pistols in holsters (9mm on the right, Ruger on the left set up for cross draw). The vest I was wearing held the 5 magazines and the holster each held one outside the gun. I also had a table to my right that had the boxes of bullets. I was shooting at a 3' x 6' cardboard target at 10 yards. I only used my right hand to shoot as dual wielding looks neat, but sucks for accuracy.
    That's great. Congratulations.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    I was able, on the third attempt, to empty all of my rounds in under 90 seconds and hit the target 85+ times. I am not military, police, or otherwise trained. I just spent about half an hour practicing. If you want to pay for the ammo, I would do it again to show you that it is possible by an untrained person to expend that amount of ammunition somewhat accurately in a very short amount of time without "assault weapons", high capacity "magazine clips", or any other aides. Just count to 10, switch clips before the next round is expended, and there is no interruption. Yes the clips end up on the ground and I was a little less gentle than I should have been when putting the glock on the table.
    Great shooting. Do you believe everyone predisposed to mass murder will take the care to be as proficient as yourself?

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    I am not a nut job or mentally unstable. I just got bored on day, went to a safe shooting area, spent half and hour and about $300 to see if I could. When I told my best firend about it, he tried as well with my 9mm and Glock and his Springfield XD40. He was able to go faster than me as he is an officer in the Navy and got to practice at it more than I did.
    I agree that you're not a nutcase.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    Your counting on the shooter having to take a lunch break to change clips allowing others to rush is a bunch of nonsense. if you read the reports (at least the ones I have seen), most of the rushes occured when the shooter was using a firearm they were not familiar with, one that jammed, or a couple people were taken down during the rush.
    I'm counting on that as a possibility given I can cite at least two scenarios where that exact act has occurred. Sadly, many on this board want to believe that scenario is impossible despite actual occurrences. Can you tell me why these real acts would be ignored?
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-18-2013 at 06:34 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  25. #575
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So it makes you feel better that it would probably take a day or two for drunk drivers to kill as many folks across this country as were killed at the theater in 20 minutes? Because of that it's not as big of a problem? Because they die one, two or three at a time in many different places as compared to few and far between 20 fatality events we should be less concerned? Here's the difference. The next mass shooting likely won't be for several months yet drunk drivers, as an example, will likely kill as many folks in this country as were killed in that movie thearter or school day after day after day after day after day until the next mass shooting, and then will continue after that in the same pattern. And because of that, in the long run, the total will be much greater than the combination of all the mass shootings over the same time period.
    Doesn't make me feel better at all. Can you point to where I've stated any such thing? Again your stupidity shines. Mass intentional murder by an individual with a firearm is a bit different than the passive deaths due to accidents or irresponsibility. Please continue to show us your well entrenced numbnuts stupidity.

    It's the same with kids drowning. It's the same with kids and bike fatalities. Or most other ways that kids and adults will die. They won't die in high-profile mass events but one here, three there, two here ... and in the end the totals will be much higher than mass shootings by far.
    When has a crazed individual drowned two dozen students and teachers at the same time? When has a crazed person smuggled a bicycle into a crowded theater and used it to kill a dozen people and injure about five times that many? Once again, EPIC FAIL with your stupidity and analogies that don't compare.

    Your anti-gun groups seem to like to focus on the rare, high profile events. I guess I am far more concerned with the everyday events. That's where the totals that we need to be concerned about come from.
    Your pro-gun groups would like to pretend that nothing can be done when there are examples in other nations that show otherwise.

    And reducing the number of guns are not going to change the fact that much of that has to do with our culture. Folks will just kill in different ways. And you have done nothing to solve the problem but you have abriged the rights of law abiding Americans.
    Bovine Scatology. This is yet another stupid argument put forth by the numbnuts of the world. Other countries don't have this problem and many of them have the same influences.

    As has been posted, using your semi-automatic criteria would, or could include 3/4 of the hunting rifles on the market. That's anti-gun. Limiting clip size when in all honesty, large capicity clips and magazines are rarely a problem. Yes, that's anti-gun. The fact is you do want to limit law abiding citizens a right to guns and clips that, even though in some folks eyes they don't need, they have a perfect right to buy, own, sell and transfer to thier famalies with some, but a reasonable amount of government oversight and regulation per our Constitution. Yes, that is anti-gun.
    Hey dumbass. Can you point me to where I've advocated eliminating private firearms ownership? Even semi-auto rifles? I've done no such thing. Yet idiots like you keep claiming otherwise.

    And yes, to me, that is an issue.
    About the only issue you've been good at is making a fool of yourself. Please proceed.
    I enjoy your idiot responses and comparisons more than any of the others. It only shows the blind perspective of the extreme gun owner crowd.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-18-2013 at 06:35 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Shooting is West Palm Beach leaves firefighter, gunman dead.
    By SouthFlaHopeful in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 06:54 AM
  2. At least 2 dead in Kansas City mall shooting
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 12:06 PM
  3. India-At Least 100 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 06:08 AM
  4. Children that cheered dead Americans
    By Waterboy620 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-12-2003, 06:01 PM
  5. Haysville, KS - 2 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2002, 04:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register