Why Pro and Anti-Gun Advocates Are Not Speaking The Same Language

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

every one of them, if you listen to your kind talk about it. Brady likes to take advantage of fact that too many people only "know" about guns from watching action movies. Good thing they don't see too many Hong Kong movies - they'd think a single Beretta in the hands of Chow Yun Fat could kill 50 people before running out of bullets.

You seem to be getting a little agitated.

Fact remains that very few crimes are perpetrated with fully automatic weapons.

Fully automatic weapons are hard and expensive to acquire. I think there is a correlation. I also think that correlation will hold for other weapons. I think that will reduce the number and the severity of mass shootings.

I guess that makes me of a certain kind.

the hopeful, delusional kind. The glock and sig he carried would have been just as capable of killing...in fact I still haven't seen any breakdown on the use of the 3 weapons. Even with 10 rd magazine limits, he would have been just as able to do what he did. In an environment where kids are trapped in rooms and have no means to fight back, the concealed handgun is more practical than an assault rifle anyway. Lighter, smaller, allows you to carry more bullets, and you're not seen as a threat till the last moment.

Agitation comes from hearing the same bullshit over and over.

BTW, automatic weapons concern me less - random spraying is not effective and the prior mentioned weight issues are there. The most carnage will result from selecting each shot. Rapid rate of fire will not.

my understanding was all the murders were carried out with the rifle, one of the handguns was used for the suicide...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

So given this guy WAS PROPERLY denied the purchase of a weapon...proving the process works as it should, then stepped up his criminal activity to include a felony theft of weapons...

Why are we missing that point?

And not JUST felony theft, he killed his own mother to obtain the weapons.

You do realize the absurd contradiction in your statement, I hope.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So given this guy WAS PROPERLY denied the purchase of a weapon...proving the process works as it should, then stepped up his criminal activity to include a felony theft of weapons...

Why are we missing that point?

And not JUST felony theft, he killed his own mother to obtain the weapons.

You do realize the absurd contradiction in your statement, I hope.

I don't think I contradicted myself. He committed felony theft and first degree murder. Two separate crimes and that was what I was pointing out.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Considering your lack of experience, your opinion doesn't amount to much.

My lack of experience in murdering people?

Quote

Also your lack of common sense. Considering the number of high capacity magazines already in private hands any ban will be useless.

At one point no cars had seat belts. Not all bans are useless, none are 100% effective.

Hey if you want to make no changes at all, that's fine. Just come out and say it.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Considering your lack of experience, your opinion doesn't amount to much.

My lack of experience in murdering people?

Quote

Also your lack of common sense. Considering the number of high capacity magazines already in private hands any ban will be useless.

At one point no cars had seat belts. Not all bans are useless, none are 100% effective.

Hey if you want to make no changes at all, that's fine. Just come out and say it.

Lack of experience with guns. Kind of slow aren't you.

Have armed guards in school, possibly LEO, and allow CHL holders to carry in schools. Some teachers will most likely get their CHL and then should carry in the schools. That will work more then banning future sales of guns or high capacity magazines that lots of people already have.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Lack of experience with guns. Kind of slow aren't you.

Ahh, couldn't refute the math I see...

Quote

Have armed guards in school, possibly LEO, and allow CHL holders to carry in schools. Some teachers will most likely get their CHL and then should carry in the schools. That will work more then banning future sales of guns or high capacity magazines that lots of people already have.

Like I have said before, I prefer a preventative approach. According to you they are all useless. Don't think you and I will ever come to any type of agreement on this, and that's ok.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

allow CHL holders to carry in schools.

aside - I heard a comment today - something about the goofy reasons anti-gun people think the 2nd is all about. One fix is to just make a legislative statement that any citizen that owns a gun or gets a license or a CHL is automatically considered to be in the state's "militia"

that should streamline things a bit

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

I prefer a preventative approach.

Your idea has already been tried and it doesn't work.

They already banned high capacity magazines and certain types of guns that they called "Assault Weapons". That ban wasn't continued. It didn't make any difference. Why do you think it would be any different this time around?

[beowulf 1]

Wow that qualified for a warning? Kind of picky aren't you.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

They already banned high capacity magazines and certain types of guns that they called "Assault Weapons".

Though it likely prevented their use in the Columbine Shooting.

They did try to use IEDs, but they are signifcantly harder to make and therefor never exploded.

And you keep going on about these "assault weapons", but that term means nothing without definition. I agree that the ban was silly in the state it was in, with very ill defined terms and almost identical guns being allowed due to "image differences". I agree that a ban along those lines does not work.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Have armed guards in school, possibly LEO, and allow CHL holders to carry in schools. Some teachers will most likely get their CHL and then should carry in the schools. That will work more then banning future sales of guns or high capacity magazines that lots of people already have.

Like I have said before, I prefer a preventative approach. According to you they are all useless. Don't think you and I will ever come to any type of agreement on this, and that's ok.

This is not a situation for preventative measures, this calls for defensive measures

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[beowulf 1]

I have no idea if high capacity magazines were used in the Columbine shootings. It doesn't matter. They still killed a lot of people. So banning them won't make any difference.

I only used the term "assault weapons" because that is what was used in the ban. It was mostly cosmetic. It's not likely that any ban on semi automatic rifles will even come close to being approved. That would be pointless since there are so many in the US already. They would have to start confiscating all semi auto rifles to make a ban even remotely effective and that will pretty much never happen.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

This is not a situation for preventative measures, this calls for defensive measures

I disagree.

Preventative measures would also work on mass shootings in locations other than schools. Hence, spending the same effort and finances on preventative measures will have a much broader reach then just defending schools.

And for the millionth time, I will clarify that preventative measures does not mean banning guns. There is much more involved than just guns.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

This is not a situation for preventative measures, this calls for defensive measures

I disagree.

Preventative measures would also work on mass shootings in locations other than schools. Hence, spending the same effort and finances on preventative measures will have a much broader reach then just defending schools.

And for the millionth time, I will clarify that preventative measures does not mean banning guns. There is much more involved than just guns.

And that is why nothing you propose will make any difference. Preventative measures don't work. Defensive measures are needed.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is not a situation for preventative measures, this calls for defensive measures

I disagree.

Preventative measures would also work on mass shootings in locations other than schools. Hence, spending the same effort and finances on preventative measures will have a much broader reach then just defending schools.

And for the millionth time, I will clarify that preventative measures does not mean banning guns. There is much more involved than just guns.

And that is why nothing you propose will make any difference. Preventative measures don't work. Defensive measures are needed.

Or more correctly, removing the laws that prohibit defensive measures.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[beowulf 1]

You are right.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is not a situation for preventative measures, this calls for defensive measures

I disagree.

Preventative measures would also work on mass shootings in locations other than schools. Hence, spending the same effort and finances on preventative measures will have a much broader reach then just defending schools.

And for the millionth time, I will clarify that preventative measures does not mean banning guns. There is much more involved than just guns.

And that is why nothing you propose will make any difference. Preventative measures don't work. Defensive measures are needed.

So instead of locking the door you stand there with a gun to defend the door. Not sure I understanding the difference between prevention and defense. Could a rubber do both, prevent unwanted pregnacy and defend against disease?

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is not a situation for preventative measures, this calls for defensive measures

I disagree.

Preventative measures would also work on mass shootings in locations other than schools. Hence, spending the same effort and finances on preventative measures will have a much broader reach then just defending schools.

And for the millionth time, I will clarify that preventative measures does not mean banning guns. There is much more involved than just guns.

And that is why nothing you propose will make any difference. Preventative measures don't work. Defensive measures are needed.

So instead of locking the door you stand there with a gun to defend the door. Not sure I understanding the difference between prevention and defense. Could a rubber do both, prevent unwanted pregnacy and defend against disease?

In this case the doors were locked and the crazy guy with the gun got in anyway. Prevention didn't work. A defensive position would have had a much better chance of working. Nothing is perfect.

[billvon 2,400]

>In this case the doors were locked and the crazy guy with the gun got in anyway.
>Prevention didn't work.

So in the real world, do you get a better lock or a bigger gun? My money would be on the better lock. The best solution to problems like that is to not have them.

[ayevee8toryear 0]

A lock will not overthrow tyrants, that is what the second amendment is for. Not gun collectors or rednecks... The 2nd amendment is for a revolution.... Revolutions may take fire power.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>In this case the doors were locked and the crazy guy with the gun got in anyway.
>Prevention didn't work.

So in the real world, do you get a better lock or a bigger gun? My money would be on the better lock. The best solution to problems like that is to not have them.

The access/ entry failed. Hence a review of access/ entry security is necessary. Bullet proof lock, armed quarde behind the bullet proof lock... etc. Leaving the door vunerable, whilst advocate giving the second grade school teach a gun who may not even get to the classroom where the shooting is going on is not a good idea. I'm really surprised these guy's are appearing on TV advocating this, without advocating securing the entry points. Unbelievable. A teacher way out in the parking lot, who can see everyone getting out of their car with a radio would help. ELIMINATING PARENTS DRIVING KIDS TO SCHOOL WOULD LIMIT CARS TO PRINCIPAL AND TEACHERS, so it would be easy to spot any car not belonging there. Where did Lanza park his car? Who saw him get out of the car? No one.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

They already banned high capacity magazines and certain types of guns that they called "Assault Weapons".

Though it likely prevented their use in the Columbine Shooting.

They did try to use IEDs, but they are signifcantly harder to make and therefor never exploded.

And you keep going on about these "assault weapons", but that term means nothing without definition. I agree that the ban was silly in the state it was in, with very ill defined terms and almost identical guns being allowed due to "image differences". I agree that a ban along those lines does not work.

two reasons why banning high capacity magazines will not work.

1 the virginia tech shooter had two guns, one with a 10-round capacity and one with a 15-round capacity, but managed to shoot more people than any other incident. less than 50% of handguns even come standard with less than 10 round magazines.

2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxzrahUUTi8&feature=youtu.be

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>In this case the doors were locked and the crazy guy with the gun got in anyway.
>Prevention didn't work.

So in the real world, do you get a better lock or a bigger gun? My money would be on the better lock. The best solution to problems like that is to not have them.

There is no lock will work a 100%. Prevention doesn't work. You can't stop 100% of all crazies from getting in. In the real world if you can't defend yourself when someone decides they want to kill you, you are screwed. The police are minutes away when seconds count. The first line of defense is your self.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

The best solution to problems like that is to not have them.

That could be said about all problems. The best solution to car accidents is to not have them... and on and on.


Not having guns around is something that can not be changed in any realistic time frame. Considering the gun culture in the US it's not politically viable option. Banning guns will only create a black market and won't make them harder to get or unavailable. Your suggestions are unrealistic.