18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

A AR- type semi auto weapon is like... A Ben II helmet.. Looks traditional, is cheaper.... But just isn't the real thing.

Why do you drive a car that goes over 55mph? Why do you eat at fast food restaurants? Why do you have 200 channels on your TV? Because you can. Because you can afford to, because you aren't an incarcerated criminal.

Why do people own 40,000 fishing boats, why do people sky dive, smoke, and drink? Because they can, they can afford to, they want to and are not incarcerated criminals..

Why should people be able to own an AR type rifle? Because they can, because they want to, because they can afford it... And because they aren't incarcerated criminals.

See the trend? Govt doesn't tell you don't by the corvette that goes 140mph, that a 16 year old with a dvr's liscense can drive no questions asked.. Govt doesn't tell me I can't own a ranger bass boat with a 200hp motor that can go 80mph that ANYONE can operate. See the trend?

Govt tells us don't drink and drive, it's a law.. How is that working?
Govt tells us don't murder, rape and steal..it's a law. How's that working?
Govt tells us don't use drugs.. There are laws.. How's that working?

I don't know what else to say..if we can kill babies legally, why is everyone upset about a couple 6 year olds? If we can kill a couple hundred kids over in the Middle East, no one cares about that though..
I'm sure there are plenty of inner city murders involving kids all across the country.
Gas is almost 4.00 a gallon, we are in so much debt it's not even funny, we are divided as a country.. There are no jobs.... How about we fix some of those issues or discuss that before we talk about banning 30 round "magazine clips" because magazine clips don't even exist.

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?

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.

I just don't understand. We can what if the situation to death....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

If the President hired mercenaries, "OH WAIT they call them PRIVATE CONTRACTORS," what makes you believe they wouldn't have access to any, and all, weaponry currently in the inventory of the US Military? Hell, Mr Executive order could make it happen with a stroke of his pen, he does have a history of bypassing the legislature when they tell him no.
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.


Again your lack of any real knowledge on insurgency and guerilla warfare is absolutely laughable. The Russians were driven out of Afghanistan by essentially a Third World bunch of rebels. These rebels did use AK-47s, and other modern small arms, but many of then were armed with surplus WW2 bolt action rifles, and some even had muskets. The Russians had tanks, and airplanes, and nuclear subs, as well as advanced surveilance equipment and still lost. In fact, much of that same technology is still being used to kill US troops after a decade of fighting. Why haven't we utterly wiped them out with all of our technology?
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?

You fail to see that people defending their homeland will pay a VERY heavy price to protect it. Look back through history, the American Revolution, Viet Nam War, the Afghanies fighting through history against numerous invaders., just to name a few. The American people, at least some of them anyway, will do exactly the same and it will be very costly to whomever wishes to try and conquer us and destroy our freedom.
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.

Before you diverted you ranted on and on about assault rifles, until myself and others here showed you what an completely uninformed buffoon you truly are on the topic of firearms nomenclature.
Yawn.....

You are anti-gun alright and not diversions by you into labeling me and others as paranoid will hide that. You are an appeaser and that Neville, is worse than just admitting you are anti-gun.
Your writings prove my point.

Just admit it...It won't change how anyone here feels about you. But then again the truth isn't the tool of ultra lefties is it?
Lol.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

The truth is you have been proven wrong so many times on this topic that you have nothing left but diversion.

---

The only one diverting is you by claiming I'm anti gun and have yet to prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

You can't properly identify the firearms you want to control.

---

I have according to a generally accepted dictionary whose function is word definitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

You have absolutely no knowledge of the FFL licensing system and the Class 3 license that DOES in fact allow private ownership of fully automatic firearms if you are willing to do the mountain of paperwork and pay the fees.

---

And could care less since I have no interest in owning one. I do know I've had to fill out paperwork to own my firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

When you realized you were losing you brought in an irrelevant firearms incident and played the race card.

---

The point was completely lost on you. The point was the difference in reaction to two unarmed individuals (or group) that was gunned down by an armed person. You claimed Zimmerman was defending himself when he confronted Martin because Zimmerman believed Martin was doing something illegal. Something no one has yet to prove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

You claimed the governemt controls how many potato chips you can buy and how you can use them.

---

Actually I claimed the government has extensive regulations regarding their production. Feel free to reread those posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

You tried, failing miserably, to draw a comparison between explosives and firearms.

---

Wrong again. I stated there were things that some might use responsibly but that didn't stop the government from making their possession illegal. You really do have a difficult time with comprehension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

I have to say your posts on this topic make me smile becuse they are utter nonsense.

---

Same here. Your paranoiac ramblings are being more self evident.

Once again. Show me a link to where I have advocated eliminating the private ownership of firearms. You keep making these fantastic claims about me with nothing other than your paranoia. Please proceed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

First off, Alex Jones can't be compared to your average gun owner. He is a conspiracy theorist nut job, and does not represent the bulk of gun owners in America.

---

Given that I've never advocated eliminating the private ownership of firearms, I can tell by the responses on this Board that he has a lot of company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

The right to own any gun I want short of a fully automatic weapon. The right to acquire that weapon as a law abiding citizen without a mountain of paperwork. And the right to purchase any size magizine that my law abiding heart desires.
I disagree. One has to go through a lot of hoops to own and operate a car. It hasn't stopped people from buying them.

The fact is there are hundreds of ways to kill folks and we are not banning baseball bats (which is the number one weapon used in murders, by the way), pipe wrenches, gasoline and matches, knives and all other sorts of everyday killers.
When was the last time someone walked into a school or theater and mowed down 30 people with a pipe wrench, gasoline and matches, or a knife? A stupid comparison. Epic fail.

You want to ban something you need to be VERY, VERY specific about the exact specifications of the items you want to ban. Most anti-gun folks have no idea that a semi-automatic is not, never has been and never will be an assualt weapon, even though it may be dressed up like military style fully automatic. Yes, I want the folks who want to be ban guns to be very specific about what they want to ban using terminology that is used in the industry, not from a dictionary.
I am. Magazines with a capacity larger than 10 rounds. BTW, does your scenario include those weapons that are easily converted to full automatic capability?

I could talk about the gross lie's and misrepresentations used by the village idiot and his cronnies but I won't. The joke of a president lied over and over about Romney's positions and unfortunately, Romney's handlers weren't skilled enough to reply.
So you're saying Obama's cronies outsmarted Romney and his handlers? Says a lot about them. Given that they lost, they must have been dumber than the person you perceive as an idiot.

Funny thing is I have a map in my office from USA Today and the VAST majority of the county's in this country voted for Romney. If you look at where the village moron got his votes it was in the urban and high hispanic areas with those that live off our money - government handoffs and entitlements. Funny how that works when you basically support folks and buy votes.
Actually numbnuts, the majority of this country voted for Obama. The maps you referenced are geographical area. Those will be relevant the day dirt becomes a registered voter. Again, epic fail.

Sorry but we have a much higher murder rate overall than just about any country, so this isn't about guns. And the VAST majority of the murders that do occur with guns occur with handguns, which are not on the table for discussion. Less than 5% of the gun murders use rifles of any type, and most of those are standard hunting rifles.
However, we have a significantly higher murder rate by guns than just about any other industrialized nation. So this is about guns.

If somebody wants to kill someone, they will find a way as I discussed earlier. The fact is that we kill people in this country at a much higher rate than anywhere else. It isn't a gun problem. It's a murder problem.
No kidding. But if they don't have a semi-auto weapon that can fire 30 rounds in less than a 30 secs., it is much more difficult for them to kill numerous people in a very short period of time.

Funny thing is that it really won't matter how we spell it. The point is that are rights are being taken away at an alarming rate. Soon we may be saying it.
More paranoia from planet wingnuttia.

---

You continue to show your stupidity on any number of topics with this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

No it isn't. Law abiding gun owners will still be able to own guns.

---

You forgot the Asterisk. You know, the part where you say that sure, you can own a gun, but it has to look like Elmer Fudd's so it's not too scary looking, and you can only have one bullet in your pocket like Barney Fife.

Any gun can kill, and limiting what gun or accessory a law abiding person can have IS punishing legal gun owners. Stop tap dancing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

Funny you bring prohibition up. How well did banning alcohol work for this country? Oh that's right, it didn't. All you saw with prohibition was a spike in illegal alcohol manufacturing, trafficking, and sales.

And as far as your so called "slipper slope" argument. Look at history in other countries. It all starts somewhere.

---

On a related note, mass murder by firearm peaked during prohibition as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRJ0...e_gdata_player
More facts, but I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears to some. Even though every fact stated can be varified. Since every post I typed with numbers/facts had linked references, I would have expected an intelligent person to look that information up and put forth a counter-point negating those facts.
But nope, instead you get lip service bs; we should eliminate DUI laws because people still drink and drive, can't drive a NASCAR on the hi-way, grenade launchers, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigGriffC12

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?

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.

I just don't understand. We can what if the situation to death....

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bones42

The right to own any gun except a fully automatic weapon (cuz that right has already been taken away - I guess by an amendment to the bill of rights?)

WRONG!! It is entirely possible to own fully automatic firearms if you are willing to jump through the hoops of getting a Federal firearms License Class 3. It is a mountain of paperwork, background checks, additional fees and a tax stamp from the federal government. But the truth is you couldn't possibly be more wrong about this.

Once again your ignorance of federal gun laws make you look like nothing more than a mouthpiece for the anti-gun crowd. Nice try but FACTS out weigh your propaganda.

The right to acquire a weapon without doing paperwork? Sorry, freedom of paperwork is not a right. You still have the right to acquire a weapon so NOTHING is being taken away.

Actually, anytime you buy a gun from a licensed FFL dealer, at least in Wisconsin anyways, you MUST fill out paperwork. No law is going to prevent criminals from acquiring guns illegally and without paperwork. You are delusional beyond all hope if you believe otherwise.

You are correct, the right to purchase any size magazine would be restricted (kind of like the fully automatic restriction you mentioned already)

Actually your comparison is faulty since I already proved you are WRONG in your belief that private citizens can't purchase and own fully automatic weapons. Add to that the fact that there are MILLIONS of those high capacity magazines out there, and that have been manufactured that aren't covered under any new law. Kind of like last time they were banned...they never disappeared from the market.


"The point is that are rights are being taken away at an alarming rate." - I have to ask...what rights are being taken away at alarming rates? More directly...what rights have been taken away since Jan 1, 2012? There must be quite a few if it's an alarming rate.

Ever hear of the Patriot Act? How about the fact that under the BS guise of terrorism you can be arrested and detained for an unspecified time with no due process of law? Pay attention and stop taking everything that the left says or for that matter what the right says and do some actual research. What rights since January 1? Why so narrow a parameter? More importantly I would ask why isn't there an outcry about the "Fast and Furious" program of the Obama administration to supply fully automatic assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels? You know the guns that were used to kill US Federal Agents?

---

At least unlike your hero SC you are openly an anti-gun person.

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigGriffC12

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigGriffC12

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

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?