The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

Again, good try. Maybe someday you'll be able to think for yourself. Until then myself and many others will continue to prove your ignorance and lack of knowledge on anything gun related.

---

Let me know when you have something that isn't the normal talking points from your end as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

Nor should there be a problem leaving them be.

---

Those on the receiving end would disagree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

It happened one single time where someone had time and actually acted. A woman grabbed the magazine he dropped. That hardly proves a point. More times people did not act during a mag change.

---

Something that could have been done after only ten rounds instead of 30. Possibly saving lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

How did anyone act? I have yet to read a story or citation of anyone who stopped or escaped due to the fact he changed guns or mags. The sole reason he swapped guns was 1) the pump shotgun ran out of shells and 2) the 100-round drum jammed.

---

Then you should reread what happened at the Gifford's shooting. I don't know how many people were able to get away because of magazine changeout. Neither do you. You assume it is zero. I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

Are you going to use more conjecture and hypothesis of how many escaped while he was swapping? How about something factual.

---

See above response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

So we should make laws on possibility?

---

This statement makes no sense. Please clarify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

You're right, you're using rationale based upon no facts, just some hypothesis that sounds good.

---

I have actual events to prove my point. You need to review the definition of "hypothesis."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

The "armed guards" (AKA campus police) were too busy thinking the incident was confined to a single dorm. The school failed, plain and simple. Had they locked down campus and called in assistance to search for the gunman, there is no telling how many may have lived. Potentially all of them.

---

Regardless. One of the arguments used by the NRA is that an armed presence deters possible gunmen. That didn't happen at VA Tech. Though I don't see anyone demanding we do away will all armed personnel at educational institutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

So, I should have the burden of proof when you want to take away something from me? That's not how our country operates.

---

I've cited my rationale numerous times. The difference is I believe those seconds may indeed count when one is being shot at by a crazy person. You don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

Never suggested that. Perhaps we should enforce the laws we have on the books instead of passing more laws we can't enforce.

---

Which law will prevent guns being sold in the secondary market?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

Every one of these people involved in mass shootings were, by law, restricted from owning a gun. However, they got them anyway.

---

True.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

The problem here is that certain people aren't interested in actually enforcing the law, they are interested in being on TV and pushing their agenda.

---

The bigger problem is the pro-gun side immediately dissolves into hyperbole when confronted with any change in the status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

DHS disagrees.. Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation
And in fact they want select-fire for personal defense.

---

Good for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

Congress is having hearings as we speak.
Even members of congress disagree with you.
Grassley on magazine capacity:

---

They're allowed their opinions. Just like I'm allowed mine. I saw Giffords' husband's testimony. Very powerful stuff. His comment (and I agree with him) was basically that limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds, saying that if the Tucson, Arizona, shooter hadn't had 33 round magazines, life would have been spared. Kelly supports gun control but also believes in gun ownership. He later stated that the person who tackled the shooter was almost killed when an armed civilian almost fired his gun, thinking that the tackler was in fact the shooter. Fortunately the would be protector did indeed hesitate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Let me know when you have something that isn't the normal talking points from your end as well.

---

You mean like all the facts, evidence, and real-world stories you've been presented with time and time again but refuse to acknowledge and continuously ignore?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati....1251027<br />

"Chicago honor student Hadiya Pendleton, who participated in Obama inauguration festivities, shot dead just blocks from her school"

Yep, gun control sure does work...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

You mean like all the facts, evidence, and real-world stories you've been presented with time and time again but refuse to acknowledge and continuously ignore?

---

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati....1251027<br />

"Chicago honor student Hadiya Pendleton, who participated in Obama inauguration festivities, shot dead just blocks from her school"

Yep, gun control sure does work...

---

We do know that because of background checks felons have been denied permission to own guns legally. Wouldn't you agree that is a good thing? If you want anecdotes, I can post stories about "responsible" individuals accidentally shooting people or themselves all day long.

What's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Those on the receiving end would disagree with you.

---

That line again? Do you honestly believe that the victims of these atrocities blame the magazine? Darrell Scott, a father of one of the Columbine victims, says it about as well as anyone I've seen. There is good and evil in this world, it's been that way since Cain and Able.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Something that could have been done after only ten rounds instead of 30. Possibly saving lives.

---

If he had dropped his ten-round mag in a location where someone could have grabbed it. If this was a valid argument, why is it he was the only one stopped in this manner?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Then you should reread what happened at the Gifford's shooting. I don't know how many people were able to get away because of magazine changeout. Neither do you. You assume it is zero. I don't.

See above response.

---

I never assumed it was zero. I'm rational enough to understand it could have been several. What I try to work on is facts. The facts are he dropped the mag and someone grabbed it, giving others time to take the guy down.

I also know, per Giffords husband's testimony, it took him 15 minutes to fire those 30-some rounds. That's two rounds per minute, one every 30 seconds. More than sufficient time to change a mag. That tells me the mag changing made no difference whatsoever. The fact he dropped the mag in a location where someone could act was the factor. That was his first mag swap, so no one escaped during previous swaps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

This statement makes no sense. Please clarify.

---

You argued that changing out mags gave the possibility for someone to act and that it wasn't an absolute. Again, I'm working off of facts. The facts are that in ONE mass shooting incident, a person was stopped while in the process of changing out mags, and that is because he dropped the mag and someone got their hands on it.

Basically, I'm raising the BS flag on that rationale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I have actual events to prove my point. You need to review the definition of "hypothesis."

---

You have one incident. One single time where a mag change impacted the incident in a favorable manner.

Knowing what a hypothesis is and actually knowing something about the scientific method, this would dictate testing said hypothesis. The hypothesis has been tested, time and time again. Only on one occassion have you found your hypothesis to be true, which means you need to look at your hypothesis.

If you want to change your hypothesis to "if someone drops their mag, it gives people victims the opportunity to react and stop the shooter" I wouldn't argue with you, as I only know of one case where the shooter dropped a mag and that is exactly what happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Regardless. One of the arguments used by the NRA is that an armed presence deters possible gunmen. That didn't happen at VA Tech. Though I don't see anyone demanding we do away will all armed personnel at educational institutions.

---

Because rational people look deeper. The reason armed personnel didnt' work at VT is because they didn't act appropriately. The reason armed personnel didn't impact Columbine is because he was at a remote location.

The NRA has also offered a number of other solutions, like actually enforcing the laws we have now rather than making new ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I've cited my rationale numerous times. The difference is I believe those seconds may indeed count when one is being shot at by a crazy person. You don't.

---

You're right, I don't. The difference is you base your rationale off of one freak incident, whereas I base mine on several.

I also have the rationale that laws exist that would have kept the guns out of those people, yet they weren't enforced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Which law will prevent guns being sold in the secondary market?

---

Require background checks for the secondary market, I don't have a problem with that as long as it's accessible. However, statistics show that background checks aren't going to solve that problem. Criminals aren't buying these guns from law-abiding sellers, they're buying them from other criminals. Case in point- William Spengler.

None of these mass murderers were in legal possession of their firearms. Holmes and Loughner had mental issues and should have been on the NICS list as banned. However, the system in place didn't work. What exactly is a magazine restriction going to do for that? Not a damn thing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

True.

---

At least you're rational enough to acknowledge that. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

The bigger problem is the pro-gun side immediately dissolves into hyperbole when confronted with any change in the status quo.

---

I think you will find that most law-abiding pro-gun folks have no problem with finding new ways to prevent these incidents. However, most have no interest in giving up their rights so that politicians can look like they're doing something by passing legislation when they won't enforce the laws that are already in place.

We have the laws that would have prevented each and every one of these incidents. You even conceded that none of these men should have been allowed guns by law. How about we address that first. Then we can look at closing the loopholes. If that proves to not do the job, at that point we can start looking at more laws.

What Feinstein and the anti-gun crowd trying to do is akin to banning lighters because the country has a fire problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

We do know that because of background checks felons have been denied permission to own guns legally.

---

We also know that many states aren't reporting to NICS like they're supposed to. We also know we're not prosecuting people who violate the law in the process of applying for weapons they aren't allowed to have.

Just because some have been denied doesn't mean the system is working. Obviously, there's a problem somewhere.

And to be totally honest and out there, I have no qualms with Obama's executive actions. My issue is that 1) most of those actions shouldn't have even been necessary and 2) they should have been done a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

He later stated that the person who tackled the shooter was almost killed when an armed civilian almost fired his gun, thinking that the tackler was in fact the shooter. Fortunately the would be protector did indeed hesitate.

---

Almost. But didn't. That's called training. In fact the same person told the tackler to put the gun down before the cops made the same mistake. That has nothing to do with your arguments. Right. Nothing.

I'll let you all have the last word. I think we've pretty much beat this one to death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I'll let you all have the last word. I think we've pretty much beat this one to death.

---

You're not "LETTING" us do anything. Just walk away, we know you lost the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I'll let you all have the last word. I think we've pretty much beat this one to death.

---

Shocker, that you're running away for a second time because you can't back your opinion up with facts.

It's been fun proving how uninformed you are.

But the same city and county don't want law abiding citizens to have the ability to protect themselves...

Convicted murderer mistakenly freed recaptured in Illinois

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/02...se-in-chicago/