|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 7, 2015 13:24:37 GMT -5
I'm assuming you don't have much experience with firearms. Yes, with a semi-auto pistol and carrying that amount of magazines (10 15 round magazines pre-loaded) 150 rounds in 5 minutes can be done without much difficulty. If you're point is is it easier with a rifle loaded with 20 or 30 round magazines, of course it is. I'm not going to deny that a firearm in the hands of someone who is sick/crazy/violent isn't a "force multiplier". But at the same time, a firearm in the hand of someone (ex. a small woman) who is about to get mugged by a bigger (or multiple) assailants is an "equalizer". And guess what, quite often just the presence of a firearm is enough of a deterrent to prevent a crime. Unfortunately, that often doesn't get reported and doesn't make the statistics, but if it does, the media doesn't give it the same treatment as a story where the crime was committed with a firearm. The Virginia Tech shooting was done with a handgun: www.khq.com/story/6382303/weapons-used-in-va-tech-shootingIt took Cho 9 minutes to fire 170 rounds and he was well planned compared to Lanza. I guess the shooter who killed 1 Pa state Trooper and almost killed another at their state police barracks didn't care much about the guns on location? Or the two on duty MYPD officers who were killed at month? There are are way too many azzzholes who have access to guns in this country. I understand the history of the ENTIRE 2nd amendment. I'm not sure I get your point. Are there "azzholes" who have access to firearms? Sure. Does that mean everyone in society should be prohibited from having them because a small percentage are "azzholes"? I think not. Not sure where this conversation is going but you've expressed your opinion and I've expressed mine. We can agree to disagree and make our own choices as to what we want to do/not do. That's what this country is about. Lets' not let government get anymore involved in our lives than it already is (too much IMO). |
|
|
|
Post by Gunnails on Feb 7, 2015 14:02:36 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 22:36:17 GMT -5
It took Cho 9 minutes to fire 170 rounds and he was well planned compared to Lanza. I guess the shooter who killed 1 Pa state Trooper and almost killed another at their state police barracks didn't care much about the guns on location? Or the two on duty MYPD officers who were killed at month? There are are way too many azzzholes who have access to guns in this country. I understand the history of the ENTIRE 2nd amendment. I'm not sure I get your point. Are there "azzholes" who have access to firearms? Sure. Does that mean everyone in society should be prohibited from having them because a small percentage are "azzholes"? I think not. Not sure where this conversation is going but you've expressed your opinion and I've expressed mine. We can agree to disagree and make our own choices as to what we want to do/not do. That's what this country is about. Lets' not let government get anymore involved in our lives than it already is (too much IMO). That's fine I guess my personal experience with persons possessing guns has jaded me over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 8, 2015 10:39:41 GMT -5
I'm not sure I get your point. Are there "azzholes" who have access to firearms? Sure. Does that mean everyone in society should be prohibited from having them because a small percentage are "azzholes"? I think not. Not sure where this conversation is going but you've expressed your opinion and I've expressed mine. We can agree to disagree and make our own choices as to what we want to do/not do. That's what this country is about. Lets' not let government get anymore involved in our lives than it already is (too much IMO). That's fine I guess my personal experience with persons possessing guns has jaded me over the years. That's fine. I can respect that. On the other side, I know dozens of people who own firearms and none of them would be considered "azzholes" and they have never done anything stupid or illegal with them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 22:28:10 GMT -5
That's fine I guess my personal experience with persons possessing guns has jaded me over the years. That's fine. I can respect that. On the other side, I know dozens of people who own firearms and none of them would be considered "azzholes" and they have never done anything stupid or illegal with them. I'm willing to bet at least 1/4 of your dozens of firearms owners have done something careless with a firearm and they got lucky. You would never know. |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 9, 2015 7:42:05 GMT -5
That's fine. I can respect that. On the other side, I know dozens of people who own firearms and none of them would be considered "azzholes" and they have never done anything stupid or illegal with them. I'm willing to bet at least 1/4 of your dozens of firearms owners have done something careless with a firearm and they got lucky. You would never know. Define "careless"? Do you mean something like accidentally dropping? If so, maybe. If you mean pointing an empty gun at someone horsing around, absolutely not. May I ask if the people you claim to know that are "azzholes" have obtained their firearms legally or have a permit to own? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 8:06:21 GMT -5
I'm willing to bet at least 1/4 of your dozens of firearms owners have done something careless with a firearm and they got lucky. You would never know. Define "careless"? Do you mean something like accidentally dropping? If so, maybe. If you mean pointing an empty gun at someone horsing around, absolutely not. May I ask if the people you claim to know that are "azzholes" have obtained their firearms legally or have a permit to own? Careless meaning left it unlocked when not in their possession or misplaced for a bit. Both |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 9, 2015 9:10:40 GMT -5
Define "careless"? Do you mean something like accidentally dropping? If so, maybe. If you mean pointing an empty gun at someone horsing around, absolutely not. May I ask if the people you claim to know that are "azzholes" have obtained their firearms legally or have a permit to own? Careless meaning left it unlocked when not in their possession or misplaced for a bit. Both You may be right in that case. Let me present a scenario to see if you consider this careless: my wife doesn't have a permit but I've taught her how to use a firearm. I've left my firearm (holstered) in my nightstand when just the 2 of us are home. Do you consider that careless? I will tell you that whenever anyone comes to our house, adults and/or children, all weapons are secured (unloaded) and anything I carry is on my hip in my possession. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 9, 2015 10:55:01 GMT -5
Who orders a bomb online? I think CTs point was you can easily find plans for a homemade bomb on the internet and elsewhere. Someone could walk into any home and garden store and get everything they need. I guarantee law enforcement wouldn't have a clue until after the fact. You don't think a well placed backpack or two at dismissal time wouldn't have taken out a whole mess of kids? Folks in Boston may disagree. Bomb making material, yes, bought "on the line". By your logic there should be roadside bombs all over the U.S. just waiting to be detonated, it's easy and undetectable. Thats a huge leap in logic from my statement but Im not surprised - I guess were there tons of crazy people running around without access to guns, maybe there would be. My point was more around the concept of "where there's a will, there's a way". If someone like Lanza wants to take out kids at the school he went to and make a statement that he was bullied, or mommy didnt love me, or whatever, and he cant get guns - well, he was mentally ill, fairly smart, and living on the internet in moms basement. its not a huge jump to think he could have put down the game controller, gone online and pretty easily come up with another way to take out a bunch of kids in a school. In this case, mom left him access to her guns, a much easier route. Had she lived, she should be prosecuted heavily. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 9, 2015 10:59:01 GMT -5
I'm assuming you don't have much experience with firearms. Yes, with a semi-auto pistol and carrying that amount of magazines (10 15 round magazines pre-loaded) 150 rounds in 5 minutes can be done without much difficulty. If you're point is is it easier with a rifle loaded with 20 or 30 round magazines, of course it is. I'm not going to deny that a firearm in the hands of someone who is sick/crazy/violent isn't a "force multiplier". But at the same time, a firearm in the hand of someone (ex. a small woman) who is about to get mugged by a bigger (or multiple) assailants is an "equalizer". And guess what, quite often just the presence of a firearm is enough of a deterrent to prevent a crime. Unfortunately, that often doesn't get reported and doesn't make the statistics, but if it does, the media doesn't give it the same treatment as a story where the crime was committed with a firearm. The Virginia Tech shooting was done with a handgun: www.khq.com/story/6382303/weapons-used-in-va-tech-shootingIt took Cho 9 minutes to fire 170 rounds and he was well planned compared to Lanza. I guess the shooter who killed 1 Pa state Trooper and almost killed another at their state police barracks didn't care much about the guns on location? Or the two on duty MYPD officers who were killed at month? There are are way too many azzzholes who have access to guns in this country. I understand the history of the ENTIRE 2nd amendment. At the risk of sounding Warfishy, if you were made supreme dictator of the US, spell out exactly who you'd allow to own guns, what kind of guns, and what the process would be to get them? Its obvious you want it more restrictive than today, but how? |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 9, 2015 11:48:43 GMT -5
Bomb making material, yes, bought "on the line". By your logic there should be roadside bombs all over the U.S. just waiting to be detonated, it's easy and undetectable. Thats a huge leap in logic from my statement but Im not surprised - I guess were there tons of crazy people running around without access to guns, maybe there would be. My point was more around the concept of "where there's a will, there's a way". If someone like Lanza wants to take out kids at the school he went to and make a statement that he was bullied, or mommy didnt love me, or whatever, and he cant get guns - well, he was mentally ill, fairly smart, and living on the internet in moms basement. its not a huge jump to think he could have put down the game controller, gone online and pretty easily come up with another way to take out a bunch of kids in a school. In this case, mom left him access to her guns, a much easier route. Had she lived, she should be prosecuted heavily.Well said. While I would like to think she would've been prosecuted heavily, I can easily see a situation where people would've felt sorry for her because she couldn't get poor Adam the help he needed and she would receive a slap on the wrist. This is the part of the "deterrent" that fails in our society today. The laws are on the books but the failure to prosecute to the fullest extent to send a message doesn't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 9, 2015 11:51:05 GMT -5
Im all for severe severe penalties when your gun is used by someone else to commit a crime, particularly murder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 12:06:25 GMT -5
Careless meaning left it unlocked when not in their possession or misplaced for a bit. Both You may be right in that case. Let me present a scenario to see if you consider this careless: my wife doesn't have a permit but I've taught her how to use a firearm. I've left my firearm (holstered) in my nightstand when just the 2 of us are home. Do you consider that careless? I will tell you that whenever anyone comes to our house, adults and/or children, all weapons are secured (unloaded) and anything I carry is on my hip in my possession. No I do not consider that scenario careless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 12:15:43 GMT -5
It took Cho 9 minutes to fire 170 rounds and he was well planned compared to Lanza. I guess the shooter who killed 1 Pa state Trooper and almost killed another at their state police barracks didn't care much about the guns on location? Or the two on duty MYPD officers who were killed at month? There are are way too many azzzholes who have access to guns in this country. I understand the history of the ENTIRE 2nd amendment. At the risk of sounding Warfishy, if you were made supreme dictator of the US, spell out exactly who you'd allow to own guns, what kind of guns, and what the process would be to get them? Its obvious you want it more restrictive than today, but how? No need for military style long guns (rifles), in order to own a handgun one must participate in continuing education/safety course on a bi-annual basis. |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 9, 2015 14:49:01 GMT -5
At the risk of sounding Warfishy, if you were made supreme dictator of the US, spell out exactly who you'd allow to own guns, what kind of guns, and what the process would be to get them? Its obvious you want it more restrictive than today, but how? No need for military style long guns (rifles), in order to own a handgun one must participate in continuing education/safety course on a bi-annual basis. Of course, I'm going to disagree  Twice a year continuing education/safety course? Who will pay for that? Would you be opposed to the same thing for, let's say, a driver's permit? Before I get into "no need for military style long guns", we touched earlier on the 2nd Amendment and why it was adopted by the founding fathers (I said it was not about forming a militia). May I ask what your belief is as to why we have this in the Bill of Rights? |
|
