NRA press conference in response to NewTown massacre [Archive]

boutons_deux

12-21-2012, 12:38 PM

10 Craziest Quotes From The NRA Press Conference (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/21/1372001/the-10-craziest-quotes-from-the-nra-press-conference/)

1) Gun-free schools zones “tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”

2) “There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

3) “[V]iolent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster, and you’ve got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.”

4) “We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work —and by that I mean armed security.”

5) “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?”

6) “And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.”

7) “Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like ‘American Psycho’ and ‘Natural Born Killers’ that are aired like propaganda loops on Splatterdays and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life.”

8) “In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.”

9) “Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?”

10) “Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/21/1372001/the-10-craziest-quotes-from-the-nra-press-conference/

National Rifle Marketing Association blames everybody but itself and the 300M guns it helped sell. :lol

ChumpDumper

12-21-2012, 01:12 PM

Well this is certainly reasonable.

lol Kindergarten Killers

Bill_Brasky

12-21-2012, 01:13 PM

Tbh, how the hell did the elementary schools not have a couple of cops. You'd just think that someone would have thought about the possibility of something like this happening..

spursncowboys

12-21-2012, 01:15 PM

read a tweet that said the NRA's response was asking why don't schools have armed guards patrolling the campuses smh.
As absurd as asking why someone would have a gun stolen from them and then used on innocent people?

Oh, Gee!!

12-21-2012, 01:18 PM

Dedicated, armed security guards (or police officers) at every school would work, but who's going to bitch when property taxes go up to pay for it? Republicans, that's who.

ChumpDumper

12-21-2012, 01:20 PM

Tbh, how the hell did the elementary schools not have a couple of cops. You'd just think that someone would have thought about the possibility of something like this happening..I think Newtown hadn't had a homicide of any kind for something like 12 years. I never had a cop in any of my schools growing up. I don't feel anyone was being neglectful.

Trill Clinton

12-21-2012, 01:22 PM

As absurd as asking why someone would have a gun stolen from them and then used on innocent people?

yup

Trill Clinton

12-21-2012, 01:23 PM

Dedicated, armed security guards (or police officers) at every school would work, but who's going to bitch when property taxes go up to pay for it? Republicans, that's who.

exactly.

who is going to pay for it?

will the NRA sponsor the guns and cover the costs?

ChumpDumper

12-21-2012, 01:28 PM

exactly.

who is going to pay for it?

will the NRA sponsor the guns and cover the costs?He explicitly called on the federal government to pay for it.

Bill_Brasky

12-21-2012, 01:36 PM

I think Newtown hadn't had a homicide of any kind for something like 12 years. I never had a cop in any of my schools growing up. I don't feel anyone was being neglectful.

Weird, in my area the school district has its own police department. Although I do live near a big city.

boutons_deux

12-21-2012, 01:42 PM

NRA hijacked by a convicted murderer

http://www.meetthenra.org/sites/nra.richirdevel.com/files/imagecache/profile-image/harloncarter1.jpg

Harlon Carter (Former NRA Executive Vice President)

On March 3, 1931, in Laredo, Texas, Carter, who was 17, shot and killed 15-year-old Ramón Casiano. After returning home from school that day, Carter was told by his mother that there were three Hispanic youths loitering near their family’s property. Carter left his house, shotgun in tow, to confront the alleged loiterers. After finding Casiano and his two companions, Carter pointed his shotgun at them and ordered them to come with him. Casiano refused and pulled out a knife and asked Carter if he would like to fight. Carter then pointed the shotgun at Casiano’s chest. Casiano pushed the gun aside and asked Carter not to shoot while taking a step back. He was then shot and killed. Carter claimed self-defense, but the presiding judge instructed the jury, “There is no evidence that defendant had any lawful authority to require deceased to go to his house for questioning, and if defendant was trying to make deceased go there for that purpose at the time of the killing, he was acting without authority of law, and the law of self-defense does not apply (http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/chapter2.html).” Carter was convicted of murder without malice aforethought (a crime similar to second-degree murder) and sentenced to three years in prison. Subsequently, Carter successfully appealed his conviction with the appeals court, holding that the trial court failed “to submit to the jury appropriate instructions upon the law of self-defense (http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/chapter2.html).” When the shooting incident was reported in media in 1981, Carter initially denied that he had killed Casiano (http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/chapter2.html) before falsely claiming that the shooting took place on his property.

Carter responded that arming dangerous individuals was “a price we pay for freedom (http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/chapter2.html).”

federal agents investigated Carter concerning his former employment with the Immigration and Naturalization Service after 40,000 to 50,000 rounds of government ammunition (http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/chapter2.html) were reported missing

www.meetthenra.org/nra-member/Harlon (http://www.meetthenra.org/nra-member/Harlon) Carter

Carter hijacking the National Rifle Marketing Association has the same faultless, impeccable pedigree as huckster,charlatan Joe Smith founding the Mormon, Inc cult.

boutons_deux

12-21-2012, 01:58 PM

For most of its history, the NRA completely ignored the Second Amendment. If you go through old issues of the NRA's signature publication, American Rifleman, from the 1940s and 1950s, you can read issue after issue without finding a single mention of the Second Amendment. The organization was focused on marksmanship and hunting, not shooting down gun control.

All that was before what is known in gun circles as the "Cincinnati Revolt" of 1977. The gun-control movement was gaining steam because of a large spike in urban crime rates. The leaders of the NRA decided to quit Washington politics and move the headquarters to Colorado Springs, where they could focus on outdoors activities and recreational shooting.

This enraged an emerging group of gun-rights hardliners who thought guns weren't primarily about hunting; they were for self-defense against criminals. Led by Harlon Carter (http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=opinion&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Harlon+Carter%22), the hardliners secretly organized against the NRA's moderate leadership at the annual meeting of the membership in Cincinnati. Manipulating the rules of order, the hardliners staged a coup from the floor.

When the sun rose the next day, the entire leadership of the NRA had been replaced by strong advocates of the right to bear arms.

Rather than move to Colorado Springs, the new NRA built a larger headquarters in the Washington, D.C., area and made its central mission to fight against gun control. The hardliners' answer to gun violence wasn't more gun control. It was more guns. If only more law-abiding people were armed and prepared to fight back, then criminals wouldn't be able to so easily victimize Americans.

The new NRA became an important member of the New Right coalition (http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=opinion&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22New+Right+coalition%22) that lifted Ronald Reagan (http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=opinion&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Ronald+Reagan%22) to the presidency. Even after he was shot in 1981, Reagan insisted that gun control wasn't the answer. Gun control was, in the view of the new NRA, just another example of the failures of big government.

Playing on gun enthusiasts' love of firearms and the fear of crime, the NRA built a following as the only organization that would stop the government from coming to take their guns. And the leadership began to push for repeal of the restrictive concealed carry laws the NRA itself had once endorsed.

The NRA isn't satisfied with its powerful influence over domestic gun laws. In recent years, the organization has branched out, promoting its anti-gun-control efforts across the globe. Favorite targets of the NRA include the United Nations and international arms treaties. Although these laws are designed to reduce armed conflict, the NRA views them as burdens on the universal human right to own guns.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/NRA-took-hard-right-after-leadership-coup-3741640.php#ixzz2FiM04r2B

gameFACE

12-21-2012, 04:07 PM

Take fake guns out of movies/video games and put in real ones in schools. Got it. Yeah, that's going to fix it. Now I know what the real apocalypse was about - an NRA press conference. They're not just irresponsible. Just plain stupid.

scott

12-21-2012, 04:08 PM

Less science, more guns.

Blake

12-21-2012, 04:19 PM

Weird, in my area the school district has its own police department. Although I do live near a big city.

School districts in SA have their own officers for sure, but I'm guessing they don't have the staff to have one officer per school.

Clipper Nation

12-21-2012, 04:20 PM

The NRA are a bunch of neoconservative fucktards, at least the GOA backs up their stances with stats, tbh...

spursncowboys

12-21-2012, 04:23 PM

TBH I find it illogical to think making guns illegal will keep criminals from using them to do something illegal.

Wild Cobra

12-21-2012, 04:25 PM

TBH I find it illogical to think making guns illegal will keep criminals from using them to do something illegal.
No kidding. like a criminal, with illegal intent, is going to obey a "gun free zone."

..really?

Th'Pusher

12-21-2012, 04:27 PM

TBH I find it illogical to think making guns illegal will keep criminals from using them to do something illegal.
Who said anything about making guns illegal?

boutons_deux

12-21-2012, 04:29 PM

Who said anything about making guns illegal?

make illegal, banning, "govt coming for our guns" are all reflexive scare-mongering strawmen that gun fetishists love to whine about.

DMX7

12-21-2012, 04:36 PM

He explicitly called on the federal government to pay for it.

LOL, we can pay for it with the tax cuts the NRA wants to give the rich!

boutons_deux

12-21-2012, 04:43 PM

Everything You Need To Know About The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/21/1368881/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-nras-wayne-lapierre/)

Here are some of LaPierre’s more stunning statements:

1. Law enforcement are “Jack-Booted Thugs.” In March 1995, LaPierre sent a fundraising letter (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950518&slug=2121718) to 3.5 million NRA members calling federal law enforcement agents “jack-booted government thugs” and arguing that “in Clinton’s administration, if you have a badge, you have the government’s go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.” President George H.W. Bush resigned his membership in protest and LaPierre was forced to apologize.

2. Bill Clinton purposely tolerated violence in order to ban guns. In March 2000, the New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/19/weekinreview/march-12-18-guns-don-t-kill-people-presidents-do.html) LaPierre “said President Clinton tolerated a certain amount of violence and killing to strengthen the case for gun control and to score points for his party. Mr. Clinton called the comments ‘smear tactics.’ Then Mr. LaPierre said Mr. Clinton had blood ‘on his hands’ because he had not enforced existing gun laws.”

3. Gun-Free zones are killing people. After the January 2011 Tucson shootings, LaPierre claimed (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/02/10/143457/lapierre-blames-government/) “gun-free zones and anti-self defense laws that protected the safety of no one except the killers,” and said that “by its lies and laws and lack of enforcement, government polices are getting us killed, and imprisoning us in a society of terrifying violence.” This, despite the fact that the shooting had not taken place in a gun-free zone. He added, “These clowns want to ban magazines. Are you kidding me? But that’s their response to the blizzard of violence and mayhem affecting our nation. One more gun law on top of all of the laws already on the books.”

4. Obama spent a lifetime destroying the Second Amendment. LaPierre refused to take part (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/03/15/150634/nra-lapierre-obama-guns/) in discussions with President Obama’s administration after Tucson shootings to discuss possible ways to avoid future mass shootings. “Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States,” he asked.

5. Fast and Furious was engineered for “political advantage.” In March 2011, LaPierre said on a Fox News program (http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/06/15/fox-hypes-bogus-theory-that-atf-operation-meant/180609) he hosted that “someone in the government” engineered the failed Operation Fast and Furious “to seek political advantage.”

6. The UN is coming for American guns. In July 2012, LaPierre told Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/05/nras-arms-treaty-hysteria-too-much-even-for-fo/186956) that a proposed United Nations treaty regulating the global arms trade “says to people in the United States, turn over your personal protection and your firearms to the government.”

7. Obama will confiscate “our firearms.” In July 2012 — just three days after the movie theater shootings in Aurora, CO — LaPierre sent a paranoid fundraising letter (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/07/649891/nra-sent-paranoid-fundraising-letter-three-days-after-aurora-shooting/) warning that the group needed to defeat President Obama’s re-election. “The future of your Second Amendment rights will be at stake,” the letter said. “And nothing less than the future of our country and our freedom will be at stake.” . . . The solicitation letter says that Obama’s re-election would result in the “confiscation of our firearms.”

8. Obama’s inaction on guns is a conspiracy to win re-election. In September 2012, LaPierre suggested a novel theory (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/26/328300/paranoid-nra-chief-obama-leaving-gun-owners-alone-is-conspiracy-to-take-away-guns/) as to why President Obama had not opposed gun rights in his first term. He said the administration’s inaction was “part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in our country…Before the president was even sworn into office, they met and they hatched a conspiracy of public deception to try to guarantee his re-election in 2012.”

9. All will be lost if Obama is re-elected. In February, LaPierre predicted that gun owners will rally en masse to defeat Obama in November. “All of what we know is good and right about America, all of it could be lost (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/feb/10/nra-official-obama-wants-outlaw-guns-2nd-term/) if Barack Obama is re-elected,” he said. “It’s all or nothing.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/21/1368881/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-nras-wayne-lapierre/

TeyshaBlue

12-21-2012, 04:46 PM

"Mass killings, such as Friday's shooting in Newtown, Conn., have shocked the nation, but criminologists say to expect more.

Shooting sprees are on the rise and probably won't be subsiding any time soon.

"There's clearly been a major upswing," criminologist Gary LaFree of the University of Maryland told The Huffington Post on Friday.

How much of an increase is subject to debate. According to FBI statistics, the trend is inching upward. People killed in clusters of four or more averaged 163 annually between 2006 and 2008, just two more than back in the 1980s.

"Homicide trends don't look like EKGs," said LaFree, who is also director of the National Center for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. "They go up for a while and tail off for a while."

But, LaFree added, "What's interesting is that we're getting a specialized strain of violence when other forms are in decline."

One-on-one gun homicides have dropped more than 40 percent since 1980, according to 2010 FBI crime data. The firearm homicide rate sank from 10,000 in 2005 to 8,776 in 2010."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/mass-murder-rate-rising-newtown-shooting_n_2302590.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+huffingtonpost%2FkFdd+(The+Hu ffington+Post+%7C+Full+News+Feed)

FromWayDowntown

12-21-2012, 04:51 PM

There were armed officers at Columbine -- officers who exchanged gunfire with the madmen that shot up that school on that day before they had carried out the bulk of their killing. Having an openly armed officer assigned to Columbine High School didn't prevent two broken kids from arming themselves with assault weapons, marching right into that school, and carrying out a massacre.

Columbine would seem to be at least some (fairly strong) evidence to disprove the idea that a motivated gunman is going to rethink a school as a target because there might be an armed officer there.

This was an absurd response from an organization that marginalizes itself with this sort of absurd posturing.

EVAY

12-21-2012, 04:52 PM

It seems to me that as a Society, we Americans have increasingly abdicated our parental and societal responsibilities to our schools, making them responsible for so much more than teaching academic subject matter. Health care (school nurses, nutrition experts, etc. etc.), mental health care ( school psychologists and counselors), values transference (civic and societal value inculcation), mentoring, sports activities, etc. etc. etc.

Now we are supposed to ask them to police their physical surroundings as part of their duties??? And all the while we tell them that they are not worth any more money to pay them, that they should get by with less money, that schools are the places where we can make our budgets balanced?

DarrinS

12-21-2012, 04:52 PM

1) Gun-free schools zones “tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”

That's just crazy talk.

spursncowboys

12-21-2012, 04:53 PM

Who said anything about making guns illegal?
I didn't mean guns as a whole. However I don't think most people who want a ban on semi-automatics realize how many actual guns are semi-automatic. However if they do want to ban, outlaw or criminalize semi-automatic weapons then they pretty much are trying to ban all guns.

TeyshaBlue

12-21-2012, 04:54 PM

EVAY

12-21-2012, 04:57 PM

I am more than frustrated with the old, tired, "Gun regulation Equals Gun Banning".

What a scare mongering tactic! I know of zero politicians in this country who are advocating doing away with all guns. That argument is the equivalent of saying "all illegal immigrants should be sent back from whence they came".

You can't get there from here and no one imagines that it is realistic because there is no way in this world that Americans are going to give up their guns.

But it shouldn't be one more thing for schools to try to figure out. For god's sake get real.

Th'Pusher

12-21-2012, 04:57 PM

I didn't mean guns as a whole. However I don't think most people who want a ban on semi-automatics realize how many actual guns are semi-automatic. However if they do want to ban, outlaw or criminalize semi-automatic weapons then they pretty much are trying to ban all guns.
Who's pushing for a semi-automatic gun ban?

EVAY

12-21-2012, 04:58 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

12-21-2012, 08:06 PM

TSA

12-21-2012, 09:04 PM

It's straight up bullshit.

Bolt action rifles, revolvers and double action pistols would all still be legal. So would anything pump action or breechload.

The reason why you use 'semi-automatic' instead of 'assault weapon' is because it would actually meaningfully ban some guns with very simple language.Are you seriously advocating banning all semi-autos? Here, you can have my bolt action Moison Nagant, kindly take it and shove it up your ass.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-21-2012, 09:08 PM

Are you seriously advocating banning all semi-autos? Here, you can have my bolt action Moison Nagant, kindly take it and shove it up your ass.

That's how Australia did it, and your posturing is cute. I could keep my .357 but have to give up my 9mm.

OH NOES!!

TSA

12-21-2012, 09:59 PM

So when semi-autos are banned and these lunatics are plucking off kids from 400 yards with their bolt action rifles do we ban those too? We might as well ban automobiles and go back to a horse and wagon, that'd save a ton of lives. I'm sick and tired of the tool being blamed for murder, why don't we place blame on the fucking person who did it?

ChumpDumper

12-21-2012, 10:31 PM

So when semi-autos are banned and these lunatics are plucking off kids from 400 yards with their bolt action rifles do we ban those too?Well, I'm not in favor of a ban, but it would be interesting to postulate how many victims could be picked off in such a manner compared to just walking into a room with a semi-auto.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-21-2012, 11:06 PM

DarkReign

12-21-2012, 11:07 PM

Well, I'm not in favor of a ban, but it would be interesting to postulate how many victims could be picked off in such a manner compared to just walking into a room with a semi-auto.

Off memory here, wasn't it in Texas sometime in the 60s? Crazy dude, long rifle, bell tower, whole lot of folks dead without ever really hearing the shot?

Wild Cobra

12-21-2012, 11:10 PM

The effective range of most semiautomatic rifles is at least 400 yards like the AK-47. The AR-15 is well above that, a BAR well and above that again. It's not like the only semi-autos are spray guns and pistols.

Have you heard of rate of fire? Most semi-autos you can get 40 shots off in a minute. Bolt action 30.06? Not so much.
That's not how i remember it.

I remember the AR-15 as having a stated effective range of 360 yards. Yes, it will shoot way farther than that, but that small 22 caliper round loses velocity quite a bit as you get farther away. Now if you use special rounds, you can accurately and effectively shoot farther, but the standard 223 rounds...

Th'Pusher

12-21-2012, 11:12 PM

Off memory here, wasn't it in Texas sometime in the 60s? Crazy dude, long rifle, bell tower, whole lot of folks dead without ever really hearing the shot?
I too am not for a semi auto ban as the logistics alone would be a nightmare,but whitman was sniping from the 28th floor. How many additional shots could he have fired with a semi-auto?

FuzzyLumpkins

12-21-2012, 11:26 PM

Whitman used an M1 which is a very nice semiautomatic rifle.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-21-2012, 11:28 PM

That's not how i remember it.

I remember the AR-15 as having a stated effective range of 360 yards. Yes, it will shoot way farther than that, but that small 22 caliper round loses velocity quite a bit as you get farther away. Now if you use special rounds, you can accurately and effectively shoot farther, but the standard 223 rounds...

This isn't 1980, dipshit. The specs are quite easy to look up.

TSA

12-21-2012, 11:39 PM

The effective range of most semiautomatic rifles is at least 400 yards like the AK-47. :lmao, sure if we are talking a broad side of a barn.

I take it you've never shot an AK, they're known for reliability, definitely not accuracy. And WC is pretty spot on with his assessment on a standard AR-15's range with your typical 55 grain Walmart .223, no if you start getting into the 20-24" AR's with a 1/7th twist in the barrel to stabilize a much heavier grain load, sure, they can reach past 400 yards, but a .223 round doesn't have much behind it at that point. If I'm going past 300 yards, I'm pulling out my .308.

TSA

12-21-2012, 11:43 PM

Well, I'm not in favor of a ban, but it would be interesting to postulate how many victims could be picked off in such a manner compared to just walking into a room with a semi-auto.

6MKWMdxixM&sns

Wild Cobra

12-21-2012, 11:48 PM

This isn't 1980, dipshit. The specs are quite easy to look up.
OK, what is meant by "effective" then? Target practice?

The effectiveness of the AR-15 is because the bullet fragments when it hits a human body, doing grave harm. Once it goes past about 360 yards, it slows to the point it no longer fragments, and just puts a tiny hole in someone. At this point, it is no longer an effective killing weapon, unless it's a sniper version. Then again, you also use a different round, and go for the head shot.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-21-2012, 11:50 PM

:lmao, sure if we are talking a broad side of a barn.

I take it you've never shot an AK, they're known for reliability, definitely not accuracy. And WC is pretty spot on with his assessment on a standard AR-15's range with your typical 55 grain Walmart .223, no if you start getting into the 20-24" AR's with a 1/7th twist in the barrel to stabilize a much heavier grain load, sure, they can reach past 400 yards, but a .223 round doesn't have much behind it at that point. If I'm going past 300 yards, I'm pulling out my .308.

I am not some dipshit that has never fired the weapon. People have and do consistently hit at over 500 yards with a 16" AR-15.

You should be able to hit a standard target at 400 yards with an SKS. I really do not know wtf you are talking about. Perhaps you should go somewhere other than Walmart to buy guns

Wild Cobra

12-21-2012, 11:53 PM

I am not some dipshit that has never fired the weapon. People have and do consistently hit at over 500 yards with a 16" AR-15.

You should be able to hit a standard target at 400 yards with an SKS. I really do not know wtf you are talking about. Perhaps you should go somewhere other than Walmart to buy guns
LOL...

The Fuzzy Troll thinks being able to hit a target at that range makes it an effective weapon at that range...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

ChumpDumper

12-21-2012, 11:56 PM

6MKWMdxixM&sns?

FuzzyLumpkins

12-21-2012, 11:57 PM

OK, what is meant by "effective" then? Target practice?

The effectiveness of the AR-15 is because the bullet fragments when it hits a human body, doing grave harm. Once it goes past about 360 yards, it slows to the point it no longer fragments, and just puts a tiny hole in someone. At this point, it is no longer an effective killing weapon, unless it's a sniper version. Then again, you also use a different round, and go for the head shot.

That only makes it less lethal. The gun has a good rate of fire.

Wild Cobra

12-22-2012, 12:00 AM

That only makes it less lethal. The gun has a good rate of fire.
It is no longer classed as "effective" at that range. Yes, it's maximum range is something like 600 yards. that is not it's effective range.

Again, it depends of what you deem as effective I guess. In your world... effective targets...

Wild Cobra

12-22-2012, 12:02 AM

I am not some dipshit that has never fired the weapon.
OK. You are a dipshit who has fired a weapon then!

FuzzyLumpkins

12-22-2012, 12:05 AM

LOL...

The Fuzzy Troll thinks being able to hit a target at that range makes it an effective weapon at that range...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

No, you are only fixating on the one with the smallest calibre and handwaving. Whitman was a badass marksman but he was tagging people at 450 yards with an M1 carbine. The point is that semiautomatic rifles have significant effective range.

Wild Cobra

12-22-2012, 12:06 AM

No, you are only fixating on the one with the smallest calibre and handwaving. Whitman was a badass marksman but he was tagging people at 450 yards with an M1 carbine. The point is that semiautomatic rifles have significant range.
Yes, they do. The AR15 has a minimum accurate range of 460 yards, and I believe up to 600 yards.

I see you properly left out "effective" this time.

TSA

12-22-2012, 12:08 AM

I am not some dipshit that has never fired the weapon. People have and do consistently hit at over 500 yards with a 16" AR-15.

You should be able to hit a standard target at 400 yards with an SKS. I really do not know wtf you are talking about. Perhaps you should go somewhere other than Walmart to buy guns

I can hit an 8" steel plate at 500 yards, doesn't mean the round is effective killing at that range.

And if you were so in the know, you'd be aware that Walmart sells Colts, pretty much the standard to which all mil spec AR's are compared to.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-22-2012, 12:13 AM

It is no longer classed as "effective" at that range. Yes, it's maximum range is something like 600 yards. that is not it's effective range.

Again, it depends of what you deem as effective I guess. In your world... effective targets...

Sorry but when the Army says the effective range of their M-16 is 500m then I will go by that. I am not going to go by you. I will never go by you.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-22-2012, 12:15 AM

I can hit an 8" steel plate at 500 yards, doesn't mean the round is effective killing at that range.

And if you were so in the know, you'd be aware that Walmart sells Colts, pretty much the standard to which all mil spec AR's are compared to.

:lol Welcome Walmart shoppers.

If you want to talk about terminal velocity required to fragment the slug then fine but unless you have been shooting people at 400 yards with an AR-15, you are just talking out of your ass.

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 12:16 AM

It is no longer classed as "effective" at that range. Yes, it's maximum range is something like 600 yards. that is not it's effective range.

Again, it depends of what you deem as effective I guess. In your world... effective targets...If the bullet could pierce body armor or a steel helmet or a 3mm steel plate at that range while exceeding the speed of sound at 500 yards, would you say, in your opinion, the rifle that fired it was effective at that range?

Yes or no.

Wild Cobra

12-22-2012, 12:16 AM

Sorry but when the Army says the effective range of their M-16 is 500m then I will go by that. I am not going to go by you. I will never go by you.
Link please.

I say you are lying, or mistaken.

The Army has never said the effective range of the M16, AR-15, or any of their common variants was 500 meters.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-22-2012, 12:17 AM

Yes, they do. The AR15 has a minimum accurate range of 460 yards, and I believe up to 600 yards.

I see you properly left out "effective" this time.

I'll edit it so as to eliminate the ambiguity.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-22-2012, 12:19 AM

Link please.

I say you are lying, or mistaken.

The Army has never said the effective range of the M16, AR-15, or any of their common variants was 500 meters.

:lol

Maybe if you stamp your feet, it will become true. Google it and anyone can verify it to be true.

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 12:30 AM

If the bullet could pierce body armor or a steel helmet or a 3mm steel plate at that range while exceeding the speed of sound at 500 yards, would you say, in your opinion, the rifle that fired it was effective at that range?

Yes or no.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KBpB_7xaN5g/T29XZJ7PIfI/AAAAAAAAALg/sFNFqGvJdbk/s320/312px-RCA_Indian_Head_test_pattern.JPG

TSA

12-22-2012, 12:33 AM

:lol Welcome Walmart shoppers.

If you want to talk about terminal velocity required to fragment the slug then fine but unless you have been shooting people at 400 yards with an AR-15, you are just talking out of your ass.

Not sure what you're laughing about, you mentioned Walmart as if they only carried shit AR's, considering they carry the brand of which all AR's are compared to I'll assume you're laughing at how stupid you made yourself look. I don't buy my AR's from Walmart if that satisfies you, I've got a few different BCM's in various lengths, and one S&W MP15.

I don't even believe I'm arguing this anymore, fuck it. Keep you're bolt actions, I'll keep enjoying my semis.

mavs>spurs

12-22-2012, 12:38 AM

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 12:44 AM

mavs>spurs

12-22-2012, 12:46 AM

civil war probably will happen someday, it's all but inevitable

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 12:48 AM

civil war probably will happen someday, it's all but inevitableI figure you'd die pretty quickly since you only have half your manhood to begin with.

Wild Cobra

12-22-2012, 12:48 AM

If the bullet could pierce body armor or a steel helmet or a 3mm steel plate at that range while exceeding the speed of sound at 500 yards, would you say, in your opinion, the rifle that fired it was effective at that range?

Yes or no.
Yes, effective for that task. Remember, "effective range" varies by what you are doing. As an open sighted weapon, the effective range is limited to 360 yards for combat operations.

When used as a killing weapon, it is not effective at such greater ranges without a scope.

I just looked up the field manual for the AR-15. They changed the "effective range" rating to "point target" and "area target." These point target range is 460 meters for the -A1 variety, and 550 meters (600 yards) for the -A2 to -A4. Now what they don't distinguish is with or without scope. My training tells me this is with scope. Not open sight. For an effective point target to provide the desired results in combat, it needs to be a head shot.

LOL... Point target... LOL... Target practice... LOL...

maximum effective range: The greatest distance at which a soldier may be expected to deliver a target hit.

They changed the damn definitions. The gruesome beauty of the AR-15 with the 223 round it the bullet will disintegrate when it hits flesh, causing massive damage. This changes at about 360 yards. By this time, the velocity slows enough the round stays intact.

That why I kept saying, it depends on what you call "effective."

mavs>spurs

12-22-2012, 12:49 AM

I'm a real dude, chump. I've never bowed or cowered to anyone..I'm definitely not your typical liberal easy clean. I pity the fuck who tries to mess with me and I'm not even some big tough guy, you're just tough to beat when you're right and I don't go looking for trouble.

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 12:54 AM

Yes...

They changed the damn definitions.:lmao

I'm a real dude, chump. I've never bowed or cowered to anyone..I'm definitely not your typical liberal easy clean. I pity the fuck who tries to mess with me and I'm not even some big tough guy, you're just tough to beat when you're right and I don't go looking for trouble.Still don't have a girlfriend, eh? Sorry about that too.

mavs>spurs

12-22-2012, 12:59 AM

your other shtick was more effective..trying to cop me and ignig's "narrative" shtick isn't working out for you

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 01:01 AM

your other shtick was more effective..trying to cop me and ignig's "narrative" shtick isn't working out for youIt's working pretty well tbh. I know you're full of shit and angry just like gtown. Feel free to try and ape his shtick tho. The more elaborate your fantasies get, the funnier it is.

mavs>spurs

12-22-2012, 01:03 AM

it comforts you to think i'm full of shit but i'm not. and there are a lot more of me than there are of you..plenty more where that came from. this is texas bitchboy..not cali.

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 01:04 AM

it comforts you to think i'm full of shit but i'm notOf course you are. For example, you talk shit about shooting liberals but are never going to do it. Cowardly tbh.

mavs>spurs

12-22-2012, 01:06 AM

i didn't threaten to shoot anyone. i said the civil war is coming..and you bet it is. we're not disarming and we're not living under your liberal utopia dude, when push comes to shove you pussies are the ones who will get bloodied. you're all spineless and weak..emasculated. you ain't shit.

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 01:09 AM

i didn't threaten to shoot anyone. i said the civil war is coming..and you bet it is.How much do you want to bet?
we're not disarming and we're not living under your liberal utopia dude, when push comes to shove you pussies are the ones who will get bloodied. you're all spineless and weak..emasculated. you ain't shit.Who said I wanted to disarm anyone?

Link.

You're the guy who's going to end up shooting himself anyways. I just hope no one else is around for the ricochet.

Galileo

12-22-2012, 01:30 AM

They should have made the school a gun free zone. That would keep the killers away.

Wild Cobra

12-22-2012, 01:35 AM

They should have made the school a gun free zone. That would keep the killers away.
Agreed. What criminal in his right mind, would disobey a law, and bring a gun into a gun free zone?

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 01:36 AM

Agreed. What criminal in his right mind, would disobey a law, and bring a gun into a gun free zone?Well, if you have a quote from any of the employees there saying they wanted to be able to carry a gun on them in an elementary school, I'd like to see it.

sook

12-22-2012, 01:55 AM

TBH I find it illogical to think making guns illegal will keep criminals from using them to do something illegal.

Nobody is making that argument, guns will never be illegal. Why civilians need assault rifles capable of firing 100 bullets in a minute is completely insane though. When someone has that sort of fire power, in a densly populated zone, they are going to take people out. Even if they have guards and cops around, you only need 20 secs or so in a classroom to kill all the kids in it.

Wild Cobra

12-22-2012, 01:58 AM

Nobody is making that argument, guns will never be illegal. Why civilians need assault rifles capable of firing 100 bullets in a minute is completely insane though. When someone has that sort of fire power, in a densly populated zone, they are going to take people out. Even if they have guards and cops around, you only need 20 secs or so in a classroom to kill all the kids in it.
Do you know just how difficult it is to buy an assault rifle legally?

I think you mean what is classed as an assault weapon.

Weapon, not rifle.

An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle.

sook

12-22-2012, 02:04 AM

Yea thats what I meant WC, fucking retards playing Halo outside and blasting the AR...Freudian slip.

Wild Cobra

12-22-2012, 02:15 AM

Yea thats what I meant WC, fucking retards playing Halo outside and blasting the AR...Freudian slip.
With such debates, I think it's important to keep such distinctions in place. If you were to ask me if I would sign a petition to more tightly control the sales of assault rifle, I just might do that. I would never do that for what is classed as an assault weapon.

The biggest thing about weapons control is just that. Control. I have no problem with requiring weapons owners to always have control over their weapon. If they are not in control of it, or have it safely locked up when not in their possession, then who does have control...

LnGrrrR

12-22-2012, 12:31 PM

it comforts you to think i'm full of shit but i'm not. and there are a lot more of me than there are of you..plenty more where that came from. this is texas bitchboy..not cali.

I sincerely hope there aren't.

scott

12-22-2012, 12:58 PM

TSA

12-22-2012, 03:50 PM

How quickly the left has forgotten that Clinton himself called for an armed officer at every school after Columbine.

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 03:51 PM

How quickly the left has forgotten that Clinton himself called for an armed officer at every school after Columbine.What blog reminded you?

It was a pretty stupid idea back then too. Not every school in the damn country needs one.

spursncowboys

12-22-2012, 04:14 PM

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323

Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to Schools

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 04:30 PM

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323

Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to SchoolsAnd?

Am I supposed to agree with this policy all the sudden?

I'm more surprised so-called conservatives are calling for more federal spending on this. Actually I'm not surprised since they are only so-called conservatives.

Amused is the right word.

spursncowboys

12-22-2012, 04:59 PM

And?

Am I supposed to agree with this policy all the sudden?

I'm more surprised so-called conservatives are calling for more federal spending on this. Actually I'm not surprised since they are only so-called conservatives.

Amused is the right word.
What conservatives?

FuzzyLumpkins

12-22-2012, 05:06 PM

^lol thinking that any of these liberals even own a bolt action. they turned in their man cards long ago, bowed to feminism and watch their wives get plowed. wouldn't know shit about standing up for themselves, having pride and dignity, or self protection. they're enemies of people like me and you and a threat to our freedom. these liberals are the enemy.

I have a 30.06, a berretta 92FS, a BAR and a Luger that were my grandfathers and a shitty 12 gauge that I bought when I was 19 after a mayate tried to break into my apartment. I'm hardly a 'liberal' and being a for gun control laws is not 'liberal.' What do liberty mean?

When I see people use the term 'liberal' I instantly have their political acumen pegged because the need to simplify like that speaks to a simple mind. If you need something more than a 6-shooter or a shottie to protect yourself you don't need to be carrying a weapon anyway.

spursncowboys

12-22-2012, 05:07 PM

I have a 30.06, a berretta M1, a BAR and a Luger that were my grandfathers and a shitty 12 gauge that I bought when I was 19 after a mayate tried to break into my apartment. I'm hardly a 'liberal' and being a for gun control laws is not 'liberal.' What do liberty mean?

When I see people use the term 'liberal' I instantly have their political acumen pegged because the need to simplify like that speaks to a simple mind. If you need something more than a 6-shooter or a shottie to protect yourself you don't need to be carrying a weapon anyway.
is your luger a semi?

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 05:09 PM

What conservatives?Do you really need to be told the position of the NRA?

Damn, read some actual news for once.

DMC

12-22-2012, 05:11 PM

10 Craziest Quotes From The NRA Press Conference (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/21/1372001/the-10-craziest-quotes-from-the-nra-press-conference/)

1) Gun-free schools zones “tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”

True

2) “There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

true

3) “[V]iolent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster, and you’ve got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.”

True

4) “We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work —and by that I mean armed security.”

Maybe. There's not suddenly a huge risk because it happened somewhere. It would help however. We do it in airports.

5) “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?”

Good point, very true.

6) “And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.”

Very true. They delve into every aspect of the killer's psyche, what he ate, what his brother wears... the killer becomes a cult figure.

7) “Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like ‘American Psycho’ and ‘Natural Born Killers’ that are aired like propaganda loops on Splatterdays and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life.”

True. The 1st Amendment needs to be revisited.

8) “In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.”

True, but there's an on/off button. They do have to accept some responsibility. Pretending they offer news when most of their material is about who's fucking whom, or the gory details of some killing somewhere in the world.

9) “Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?”

I've said the exact same on this forum.

10) “Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?”

It's fun though.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/21/1372001/the-10-craziest-quotes-from-the-nra-press-conference/

National Rifle Marketing Association blames everybody but itself and the 300M guns it helped sell. :lol

The NRA didn't kill anyone and they didn't put a gun into the hands of that 20 year old man. If the NRA had their way, there would have been a security guard, armed, at that school.

I am not a member of the NRA. I don't disagree with the statements you quoted. The fact you do is a testament to how intellectually dishonest you are, and what a piece of rancid shit your takes are on this forum.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-22-2012, 05:12 PM

Yes, effective for that task. Remember, "effective range" varies by what you are doing. As an open sighted weapon, the effective range is limited to 360 yards for combat operations.

When used as a killing weapon, it is not effective at such greater ranges without a scope.

I just looked up the field manual for the AR-15. They changed the "effective range" rating to "point target" and "area target." These point target range is 460 meters for the -A1 variety, and 550 meters (600 yards) for the -A2 to -A4. Now what they don't distinguish is with or without scope. My training tells me this is with scope. Not open sight. For an effective point target to provide the desired results in combat, it needs to be a head shot.

LOL... Point target... LOL... Target practice... LOL...

They changed the damn definitions. The gruesome beauty of the AR-15 with the 223 round it the bullet will disintegrate when it hits flesh, causing massive damage. This changes at about 360 yards. By this time, the velocity slows enough the round stays intact.

That why I kept saying, it depends on what you call "effective."

Anyone can google 'effective range m-16A2' and quickly see you are full of shit. I have been reading about fragmentation velocities for 16" barrels and all i can say is oyu should stop talking out of your ass.

Anyway you can load hollowpoints and it moots at that point. If you do not think you can kill people quite easily at over 400 yards with a 16" AR-15, you are an idiot.

DMC

12-22-2012, 05:13 PM

Do you really need to be told the position of the NRA?

Damn, read some actual news for once.

You faggots see "NRA" and just like that the water muddies and stupidity takes over your mind, and you start saying really stupid shit, pretending you can no longer use common sense. All this in the name of toeing the party line.

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 05:13 PM

Tell us more about the shadow industry, DMC.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-22-2012, 05:14 PM

is your luger a semi?

yup. 1943 French made taken off a nazi officer.

spursncowboys

12-22-2012, 05:17 PM

Your grandfather's a bad ass.

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 05:18 PM

You faggots see "NRA" and just like that the water muddies and stupidity takes over your mind, and you start saying really stupid shit, pretending you can no longer use common sense. All this in the name of toeing the party line.
I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school - and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/full-text-nra-remarks-gun-control-debate-newtown-article-1.1225043#ixzz2Fp0bI3v9

FuzzyLumpkins

12-22-2012, 05:24 PM

Your grandfather's a bad ass.

indeed he was. He served under Bradley and later Patton. Later retired full bull after 30 years and became a math teacher of all things. We miss him a lot.

DMC

12-22-2012, 05:28 PM

Can you hit a target with the proper load at 400+ yards with the 22 cal? Sure. You can hear the metal report. Can you put effective fire on a human target at that range? Maybe, but there's a reason the .223 isn't even allowed for deer hunting. It's known for poking small holes and wounding animals. Move up to a .243 and you're good, but for that distance I would prefer a .308 so you can still have enough KE at the target.

Matching the bullet to the target is the most effective way to kill the target. Sure you can pull your boat with a Camry, for a while.

DMC

12-22-2012, 05:29 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/full-text-nra-remarks-gun-control-debate-newtown-article-1.1225043#ixzz2Fp0bI3v9

That doesn't change my point.

DMC

12-22-2012, 05:30 PM

Tell us more about the shadow industry, DMC.

That's where the shadow of my balls falls against your chin.

DMC

12-22-2012, 05:31 PM

Well, if you have a quote from any of the employees there saying they wanted to be able to carry a gun on them in an elementary school, I'd like to see it.

If you can show me a quote where the NRA said "It's a good idea to take an AR-15 into an elementary school and shoot everyone" I'd like to see it.

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 05:59 PM

That doesn't change my point.Since you didn't have one, I can't argue that.

That's where the shadow of my balls falls against your chin.So you'd rather just go ad hominem at this point. It's not like you really had a choice.

If you can show me a quote where the NRA said "It's a good idea to take an AR-15 into an elementary school and shoot everyone" I'd like to see it.And here comes the straw man.

It's hilarious that I made your panties bind so furioiusly. The only opinion I have stated since the shooting has been against further gun control measures.

DMC

12-22-2012, 06:15 PM

Since you didn't have one, I can't argue that.

So you'd rather just go ad hominem at this point. It's not like you really had a choice.

I didn't attack you. I just rested my balls on your chin.

And here comes the straw man.

It's hilarious that I made your panties bind so furioiusly. The only opinion I have stated since the shooting has been against further gun control measures.

That's right, you pwned because you said so. You're the referee after all.

I typically don't read your opinions. They are like 4 word cynical PMS responses normally posted by 15 year old girls.

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 06:29 PM

I didn't attack you. I just rested my balls on your chin.Anything to avoid the actual question. It's OK to be afraid of it.

That's right, you pwned because you said so. You're the referee after all.Seems fairly obvious. You certianly stopped discussing anything about the actual topic and turned the conversation soley to me.

I typically don't read your opinions. They are like 4 word cynical PMS responses normally posted by 15 year old girls.Case in point.

TSA

12-22-2012, 07:47 PM

DMC

12-22-2012, 08:38 PM

Anything to avoid the actual question. It's OK to be afraid of it.

I consider your questions to be folly. Answering them doesn't gain me anything since your responses are just childish quips.

Seems fairly obvious. You certianly stopped discussing anything about the actual topic and turned the conversation soley to me.

You seemed to take personal offense at the term "faggot". Did I strike a nerve?

Case in point.
Quid pro quo

ChumpDumper

12-22-2012, 10:55 PM

I consider your questions to be folly. Answering them doesn't gain me anything since your responses are just childish quips.You made a claim about a shadow industry. You can't back it up. Point lost by you.

You seemed to take personal offense at the term "faggot". Did I strike a nerve?Are you looking for a date? I'm flattered, but no thanks.

Quid pro quoQuid pro quo would have been continuing the conversation in a civil manner. Sorry, there were no logical fallacies in my posts to you. You just seemed to get really nervous and started doing everything you could to avoid discussing the topic at hand. It's OK, whatever your reasons -- fear, ignorance, hatred, whatever -- you are free to run away. Don't act like you aren't though. It's pretty pathetic.

DMC

12-22-2012, 11:08 PM

You made a claim about a shadow industry. You can't back it up. Point lost by you.

What claim? I just agreed. I have no burden of proof. I am free to agree without needing to explain anything to you.

Are you looking for a date? I'm flattered, but no thanks.

Is that your canned response when called a faggot? Odd you even have one on the ready.

Quid pro quo would have been continuing the conversation in a civil manner. Sorry, there were no logical fallacies in my posts to you. You just seemed to get really nervous and started doing everything you could to avoid discussing the topic at hand. It's OK, whatever your reasons -- fear, ignorance, hatred, whatever -- you are free to run away. Don't act like you aren't though. It's pretty pathetic.
Quid pro quo would have been you offering something other than a challenge. Anyone can challenge someone else to provide some information. Why should I? I've responded ad nauseum to the gun debate so far above everyone's head that I've got nothing in return. Then again, you've got about 71K posts of nothing but quips. I learned long ago that people like you are just instant responders without any knack or concern for content.

Now go on, call me mad. Say I am in fear. Say you've gained or I've lost a point. I'm older than that.

Wild Cobra

12-22-2012, 11:15 PM

Wild Cobra

12-22-2012, 11:18 PM

Sure you can pull your boat with a Camry, for a while.
LOL...

They changed what "effective range" means. I wonder when they did that? With all these CAFE standards, maybe they will start calling a Camery a suitable vehicle for your boat towing needs too.

DMC

12-22-2012, 11:20 PM

I find Fuzzy to be just someone looking for a point in your post where he can interject his disagreement. It's funny he bought a shotgun to defend himself but says if you need more than a revolver you shouldn't be carrying anyhow.
Odd that cops routinely expend several magazines and never hit a suspect. I suppose he's never fired under duress since he thinks a revolver is all he needs, as if he's going to be called up one day and be scheduled for an attack by a paper target.

Wild Cobra

12-22-2012, 11:21 PM

ChumpDumper

12-23-2012, 05:37 AM

What claim? I just agreed. I have no burden of proof. I am free to agree without needing to explain anything to you.You couldn't if you tried. That's good enough for me.

Is that your canned response when called a faggot? Odd you even have one on the ready.Yes, actually. So many weak minded individuals tresort to such vulgarities when they feel cornered in a real discussion, that response helps me to find out if someone is going to continue fleeing in the face of real conversation. You are precisely the kind of person it weeds out.

Quid pro quo would have been you offering something other than a challenge. Anyone can challenge someone else to provide some information. Why should I? I've responded ad nauseum to the gun debate so far above everyone's head that I've got nothing in return.I've noticed you have been changing the subject whenever you are caught in a particularly vulnerable position if you actually tried to defend or prove what you vomit out in a fit of passion. It's an easy pattern to trace.
Then again, you've got about 71K posts of nothing but quips. I learned long ago that people like you are just instant responders without any knack or concern for content.In this case, your responses show you had nothing but knee-jerk bullshit you can't defend and probably don't believe in the first place.

Now go on, call me mad. Say I am in fear. Say you've gained or I've lost a point. I'm older than that.I'll say you are more transparent than you think. It's certainly not a crime, but it is rather stupid of you if you want to be taken seriously.

Let me know if I misspelled anything. I will edit my post and give you credit for pointing it out.

DMC

12-23-2012, 10:25 AM

You couldn't if you tried. That's good enough for me.

Yes, actually. So many weak minded individuals tresort to such vulgarities when they feel cornered in a real discussion, that response helps me to find out if someone is going to continue fleeing in the face of real conversation. You are precisely the kind of person it weeds out.

I've noticed you have been changing the subject whenever you are caught in a particularly vulnerable position if you actually tried to defend or prove what you vomit out in a fit of passion. It's an easy pattern to trace.In this case, your responses show you had nothing but knee-jerk bullshit you can't defend and probably don't believe in the first place.

I'll say you are more transparent than you think. It's certainly not a crime, but it is rather stupid of you if you want to be taken seriously.

Let me know if I misspelled anything. I will edit my post and give you credit for pointing it out.

lol

CosmicCowboy

12-24-2012, 10:13 AM

is there really any argument against the fact that the best way to stop a crazy motherfucker with a gun is by opposing him with a sane, well trained, armed, opponent? There are less than 100,000 public schools in the USA. Why CAN'T we put an armed guard in each one with a pistol on his hip and a gun safe in the office with shotguns, M16's, stun grenades, etc.? The cost would be minimal compared to other stuff the US pisses money off on.

CosmicCowboy

12-24-2012, 10:20 AM

We already have tens of thousands of trained soldiers coming home from Iraq/Afghanistan that need jobs...with additional psych testing and training they could drop right into good paying steady employment as school guards.

Winehole23

12-24-2012, 10:29 AM

militarize the schools? no thanks.

CosmicCowboy

12-24-2012, 10:34 AM

militarize the schools? no thanks.

I thought you cared about the children?

scott

12-24-2012, 10:44 AM

We need armed military, and barbed wire fences, and modern surveillance surrounding our schools... you know, to protect our freedom.

CosmicCowboy

12-24-2012, 10:49 AM

Just sayin, these mass shootings only seem to happen in "gun free" zones. Coincidence?

Nope.

boutons_deux

12-24-2012, 10:55 AM

"Why CAN'T we put an armed guard in each one"

because many schools are campuses with many buildings spread over acres. YOU, not me, would need an armed guard for every building, perhaps multiple guards for big buildings with several main doors.

And at $50K/year per guard + $1000 in armaments and ammo, YOU, tax whiner, wouldn't want to pay a penny more in taxes to pay for the armed fortressing of schools.

admit you're and your ilk are nothing, like the NR marketing A, but shills for the gun business.

You and your ilk prove that you sickos are intent on admitting that the USA is one very sick, degenerate society that you intend to make sicker and more degenerate for fun and profit.

CosmicCowboy

12-24-2012, 11:00 AM

scott

12-24-2012, 11:06 AM

.

Double post.

scott

12-24-2012, 11:06 AM

Just sayin, these mass shootings only seem to happen in "gun free" zones. Coincidence?

Nope.

Like Columbine?

DMC

12-24-2012, 11:14 AM

Like Columbine?

Sure, another school where guns weren't allowed.

Winehole23

12-24-2012, 11:14 AM

I thought you cared about the children?to oppose the gross solicitation of pity for children and veterans to promote some public policy aim, is surely to oppose children and veterans.

DMC

12-24-2012, 11:14 AM

We need armed military, and barbed wire fences, and modern surveillance surrounding our schools... you know, to protect our freedom.

Our airports have it. Why are they more important than our schools?

Winehole23

12-24-2012, 11:15 AM

the idea that more guns might not make schools safer, seems not to have occurred to CC.

DMC

12-24-2012, 11:18 AM

the idea that more guns might not make schools safer, seems not to have occurred to CC.

How about the idea that more security doesn't equate to more guns? Or how about the idea that only one gun is needed to wreak havoc on a school?

If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night, someone with a gun, do you call the cops? Why would you want more guns brought into your home?

boutons_deux

12-24-2012, 11:18 AM

DMC

12-24-2012, 11:24 AM

The NR marketing A's strategy of pushing for 300M+ guns ENABLES the sickos (who are often victims of a sick society, not isolated cases) to become mass killers.

The corporations and their suckered bubbas like yourself succeeding in turning schools into armed fortresses for profit is more proof of a sick society controlled by corporations, a corporatocracy.

So then your only solution is to change laws, and your flow chart has a block that says "..." between "guns are banned" and "shootings cease" because neither you nor anyone else here can explain how gun laws or even an outright ban on guns would affect the non-law abiding citizen.

If the problem is that parents are allowing their kids to acquire firearms, deal with that the same way you would deal with parents allowing their kids to acquire drugs or alcohol, both of which are illegal if you are not 21 years of age (drugs are banned regardless) and both of which a teen can acquire easily, usually just by buying the drugs at school and having someone strawman the alcohol.

ChumpDumper

12-24-2012, 11:30 AM

Sure, another school where guns weren't allowed.Except for the deputy sheriff that was assigned to that school as its armed resource officer.

The Reckoning

12-24-2012, 11:35 AM

youd think all the cops who sit in school zones giving speeding tickets would be able to respond

boutons_deux

12-24-2012, 11:43 AM

"So then your only solution is to change laws"

only? do you know of any other way?

"change the laws"? which is not your strawman of BANNING GUNS for everybody.

DMC

12-24-2012, 11:49 AM

"So then your only solution is to change laws"

only? do you know of any other way?

"change the laws"? which is not your strawman of BANNING GUNS for everybody.

What is your goal? Be precise.

If it's to prevent these events from happening, how will gun laws do that? You cannot look into the past and say "if this then that" because you do not know what would have been different had laws been different. Also, you need to know what laws currently exist. Just taking the position that, whatever laws exist, they aren't restrictive enough, is not good enough. Cite a specific law, tell me how you would alter or eliminate it, or what new laws you would want. Then tell me how these laws could be enforced and how the enforcing of them would help you achieve your goal.

If you're serious and not just running your mouth, you should be able to respond quite easily.

boutons_deux

12-24-2012, 12:18 PM

NRA Suggests a Police State

The irony of the NRA’s crackpot idea for protecting America’s children by dramatically expanding the use of armed guards is that the proposal would push the U.S. further down the path toward a police state, threatening the “liberties” that the NRA claims it wants to ensure

If one follows the “logic” of the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, the United States should become an armed camp with armored-up police carrying high-powered weapons stationed at virtually every location where children might congregate and where a crazy person might show up with a semi-automatic assault rifle.

After all, why stop at protecting schools? A mentally unstable individual could just as easily walk into a shopping mall at Christmas and murder kids waiting to talk to Santa Claus or enter a theater showing a Disney film and open fire on the tiny movie-goers or stroll onto a field where children are playing soccer and empty a 100-round magazine.

http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/nra-graphic.jpg

If we are to really protect the children as LaPierre suggests, we should have armor-encased SWAT officers at literally every event where there are kids. It clearly wouldn’t do to just have some donut-eating cops with simple sidearms. All they would do is provide initial target practice for a gunman with his Bushmaster AR-15.

No, we would need “good guys with guns” at least equal in firepower to the “bad guys with guns.”

---

Of course, the real American Framers, people like James Madison and George Washington, were not crazed ideologues like Wayne LaPierre. They were pragmatic nationalists who feared the danger to their newly independent nation if “domestic Tranquility” could not be achieved through the creation of effective governance.

The Framers assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 to replace the ineffective, states’-rights-oriented Articles of Confederation. In writing the U.S. Constitution, they opted instead for a new democratic Republic with a strong central government. [See Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]

With memories of the 1786-87 Shays’ Rebellion still fresh, Madison and Washington led the way in devising a system that allowed for the expression of popular will through the House of Representatives, elected every two years, yet with safeguards against hasty changes by having the Senate, elected (then by state legislatures) to six-year terms.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/23/nra-suggests-a-police-state/

boutons_deux

12-24-2012, 12:21 PM

DMC

12-24-2012, 12:32 PM

"What is your goal?"

severely regulated, heavily, repeatedly taxed firearms and ammunition with very punitive, expensive MANDATORY penalties for violations, including imprisonment. All Federal, not state or local.

So then your goal is legislation, not the result of the legislation? Your goal isn't centered around the use of firearms or the results of the use, but the fact that only the wealthy should be able to afford them?

Got it.

At least I know where you stand now.

DMX7

12-24-2012, 12:45 PM

A place where an armed guard didn't help.

TeyshaBlue

12-24-2012, 12:47 PM

So then your goal is legislation, not the result of the legislation? Your goal isn't centered around the use of firearms or the results of the use, but the fact that only the wealthy should be able to afford them?

Got it.

At least I know where you stand now.

lol.

boutons_deux

12-24-2012, 01:10 PM

"only the wealthy should be able to afford them?"

did I say that?

and let me know when you're bothered by extreme regressivity of (capped) SS taxes.

leemajors

12-24-2012, 01:40 PM

Weird, in my area the school district has its own police department. Although I do live near a big city.

AISD has one too, but they are never at my daughter's elementary school.

DUNCANownsKOBE

12-24-2012, 02:26 PM

These mass shootings don't only occur at schools. What's the solution to movie theater shootings? Do we put an armed guard in every movie theater? The Giffords shooting occurred in a grocery store. Should we put an armed guard in every grocery store?

The cost of this operation is also being grossly underestimated. It would be roughly 100,000 armed guards who would be public sector employees. They'd have a union and get great benefits (including a pension) like every other public sector group. There would also be the cost of mental health screening for all employees, training, etc. It would come out to at least 30k-40k per guard (which is a pretty conservative estimate) so at least 3-4 billion in additional spending for an idea that only addresses a small part of the problem and can easily be countered with a sniper rifle and decent aim.

Wild Cobra

12-24-2012, 05:21 PM

scott

12-24-2012, 05:29 PM

I didn't know theaters, grocery stores, etc. were a designated gun free zone. I thought customers go in with concealed carry regularly.

No regularly enough to prevent mass shootings, apparently.

boutons_deux

12-24-2012, 06:37 PM

DMC

12-24-2012, 07:25 PM

The solution is obvious: we should use every strawman and misconception imaginable to our advantage when trying to win a point. We should not state a goal, just comment on how bad things are and how they have to change. We should not be bothered with knowing laws or facts, that's not our problem. We should just pick a side and talk.

DUNCANownsKOBE

12-24-2012, 07:31 PM

I didn't know theaters, grocery stores, etc. were a designated gun free zone. I thought customers go in with concealed carry regularly.

I didn't know that if something wasn't a designated gun free zone I should prepare for a mass shooting to occur.

mavs>spurs

12-24-2012, 08:19 PM

it's the opposite, shootings occur in places where people have been disarmed and gun free zones

DUNCANownsKOBE

12-24-2012, 08:21 PM

But Wild Cobra just said grocery stores and movie theaters weren't gun free zones?

ChumpDumper

12-24-2012, 08:38 PM

it's the opposite, shootings occur in places where people have been disarmed and gun free zonesHm, an Arizona parking lot is a gun free zone?

CosmicCowboy

12-24-2012, 10:00 PM

Hm, an Arizona parking lot is a gun free zone?

You really think you can legislate against crazies?

Thats crazy.

DMC

12-24-2012, 10:00 PM

Hm, an Arizona parking lot is a gun free zone?

No, there was a guy there with a CCW who arrived after the shooting stopped, but did help detain the suspect. What didn't happen was a methodical, systematic killing of everyone there followed by a suicide.

ChumpDumper

12-24-2012, 10:04 PM

You really think you can legislate against crazies?

Thats crazy.Well, there is a distinct possibility that at least some of these perpetrators would have been institutionalized using the past mental health models. I'm not sure if it was explicit legislation that unleashed all the crazies. I'll have to look it up. The powers that be not investigating that possible angle would be crazy.

ChumpDumper

12-24-2012, 10:08 PM

No, there was a guy there with a CCW who arrived after the shooting stopped, but did help detain the suspect. What didn't happen was a methodical, systematic killing of everyone there followed by a suicide.Dude dropped his magazine. He probably wasn't finished. It's a distinction without significance anyway. It was a shooting that didn't happen in a gun free zone. m>s's argument was that they all happen in gun free zones. It was in error. I'm not going to start a whole thing here. It happened.

DMC

12-24-2012, 10:12 PM

Dude dropped his magazine. He probably wasn't finished. It's a distinction without significance anyway. It was a shooting that didn't happen in a gun free zone. m>s's argument was that they all happen in gun free zones. It was in error. I'm not going to start a whole thing here. It happened.

it's the opposite, shootings occur in places where people have been disarmed and gun free zones

I don't see where mavs>spurs said all shootings happen in gun free zones.

Shootings have happened in gun free zones. Many of them in fact. The one that led to this thread being created happened in a gun-free zone. Columbine was a gun free zone. Va-Tech killing was a gun-free zone.

You seem to get off on building strawmen to attack.

DMC

12-24-2012, 10:17 PM

Well, there is a distinct possibility that at least some of these perpetrators would have been institutionalized using the past mental health models. I'm not sure if it was explicit legislation that unleashed all the crazies. I'll have to look it up. The powers that be not investigating that possible angle would be crazy.

If laws were infinitely restrictive, no crimes would occur.

ChumpDumper

12-24-2012, 10:17 PM

I don't see where mavs>spurs said all shootings happen in gun free zones.

Shootings have happened in gun free zones. Many of them in fact. The one that led to this thread being created happened in a gun-free zone. Columbine was a gun free zone. Va-Tech killing was a gun-free zone.

You seem to get off on building strawmen to attack.Quite the contrary. He said they attack in gun free zones. I provided an example where one did not.

That's it.

It's a fact. One you can 't change. If you want to make this about me again, that's your choice.

ChumpDumper

12-24-2012, 10:21 PM

If laws were infinitely restrictive, no crimes would occur.Well, you can fight that straw man if you like. It certainly was not what I proposed.

DMC

12-24-2012, 10:22 PM

Quite the contrary. He said they attack in gun free zones. I provided an example where one did not.

That's it.

It's a fact. One you can 't change. If you want to make this about me again, that's your choice.

They do attack in gun free zones. It's not an exclusive statement, regardless how you would like to make it so. I am more than certain m>s knows there have been attacks in the public as well.

DMC

12-24-2012, 10:24 PM

Well, you can fight that straw man if you like. It certainly was not what I proposed.

You proposed some Minority Report style solution that takes known criminals and goes back in time to put them in institutions. That's a working solution right there. My response is at least as sensible as your statement about "if this guy were locked up, he couldn't have committed the crime".

Do you think all autistic people should be institutionalized? How about all people will wild looking eyes? How about people who've read Catcher in the Rye? John Lennon might still be alive.

ChumpDumper

12-24-2012, 10:34 PM

They do attack in gun free zones. It's not an exclusive statement, regardless how you would like to make it so. I am more than certain m>s knows there have been attacks in the public as well.I simply presented one. It happened. You still can't change that fact. I don't know why you're still going on about it. Oh, it's about me now. OK.

You proposed some Minority Report style solution that takes known criminals and goes back in time to put them in institutions.I did nothing of the sort. That's about as bad an inference as could be drawn form an observation about past mental health practices that were actually followed in this country.

Do you think all autistic people should be institutionalized? How about all people will wild looking eyes? How about people who've read Catcher in the Rye? John Lennon might still be alive.That's a lot of straw for one post.

DMC

12-24-2012, 11:35 PM

I simply presented one. It happened. You still can't change that fact. I don't know why you're still going on about it. Oh, it's about me now. OK.

I did nothing of the sort. That's about as bad an inference as could be drawn form an observation about past mental health practices that were actually followed in this country.

That's a lot of straw for one post.
You make a strawman and attack it then pretend to be the victim. lol

I'm really not trying to make it about you, but you insist on building strawmen.

When someone decides to kill you cannot simply move your chess pieces back and say "if I made this move instead... that piece couldn't take my queen". Life develops just as a chess game develops, and you live with the results and try to do better next time. So if you're saying that, in the future, we should more closely examine the needs of the autistic and those with other mental issues, you're right, but who's going to pay? We cannot just pour more money we don't have into treatments for people just so millions of people don't pose a risk. What then when the perp isn't mentally unstable?

And should we push for a gestapo like home to home search for mentally unstable people? If they don't seek help, how are we to know of them?

The cold truth is that this nation is fucked and unfuckable. The best remedy for your personal safety is to get a gun and get accustomed to using it. If you are one of those who refuse, you are just hoping useless politicians who cannot balance a budget will find a way to fix society.

mavs>spurs

12-25-2012, 12:09 AM

If you are one of those who refuse, you are just hoping useless politicians who cannot balance a budget will find a way to fix society.

:lmao they'd rather go on vacation on the edge of the fiscal cliff than actually fix shit. it's going to destroy us, and it's by design while they pretend to point the finger at eachother. people who genuinely trust in the government and rely on them for protection crack me up. especially those who trash trickle down economics (which actually is stupid) but then go and parade trickle down government like if they support the system enough it's going to really care about them and be their savior. just plain stupid.

mavs>spurs

12-25-2012, 12:17 AM

understand this people..the government wants to take your guns so that they can rape you even harder with impunity..never at ANY point in history have good things followed disarmament of a people..it's ALWAYS the opposite. hitler, mao, stalin in recent times, there are many more examples throughout history. the end result of disarmament is tyranny, genocide, and mass killing of political dissidents. these people want a one world government..and you liberals are their little puppets. guns make you safer and the government knows that..homicide rates in unarmed chicago and ny are among the highest in the nation. ask britain what happened after disarmament. this is the same administration who got caught shipping guns into mexico to blame the 2nd amendment. wake the f up.

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 01:00 AM

You make a strawman and attack it then pretend to be the victim. lolI could never be a victim of anything you did.

I'm really not trying to make it about you, but you insist on building strawmen.I didn't, but you sure did. Did you feel you had to escalate a straw war or something?

When someone decides to kill you cannot simply move your chess pieces back and say "if I made this move instead... that piece couldn't take my queen". Life develops just as a chess game develops, and you live with the results and try to do better next time. So if you're saying that, in the future, we should more closely examine the needs of the autistic and those with other mental issues, you're right, but who's going to pay? We cannot just pour more money we don't have into treatments for people just so millions of people don't pose a risk. What then when the perp isn't mentally unstable? Who's going to pay for all the police in every school in America? How much will that cost? Does anyone even have a figure?

And should we push for a gestapo like home to home search for mentally unstable people? If they don't seek help, how are we to know of them?There's the straw man again. You've made far more than I in this thread.

The cold truth is that this nation is fucked and unfuckable. The best remedy for your personal safety is to get a gun and get accustomed to using it. If you are one of those who refuse, you are just hoping useless politicians who cannot balance a budget will find a way to fix society.I simply don't think the only answer is more guns.

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 01:01 AM

ElNono

12-25-2012, 01:16 AM

Wild Cobra

12-25-2012, 03:33 AM

I didn't know that if something wasn't a designated gun free zone I should prepare for a mass shooting to occur.
The point is, if it is a gun free zone, there is zero chance of a law abiding citizen there to stop it from being worse, once it starts.

Wild Cobra

12-25-2012, 03:37 AM

Maybe we should just live with the fact that there's crazies out there, and that sometimes shit like this happens. You know, like its been since pretty much forever. Sure, sucks if its your kid or somebody in your family, but the odds, as small as they might be, are always there.

Some might disagree/be scared shitless with making these kind of tradeoffs, but militarizing schools like we militarized airports? No thanks.
I agree. Fuck the TSA, they are out of control. The schools that tighten policies, especiall zero ttolerance policies are out of control.

What ever happened to reasonable? If the law deems an individual is responsible enough to carry concealed, then what's wrong with trusting them to help protect our kinds?

This armed guard thing though... No way. Do we really want to instill that fear of others on our children?

Nbadan

12-25-2012, 03:52 AM

The point is, if it is a gun free zone, there is zero chance of a law abiding citizen there to stop it from being worse, once it starts.

"Gee, It's Too Bad Nobody At Fort Hood Had Any Weapons To Stop That shooter."

But its Christmas....lets not argue...

Winehole23

12-25-2012, 04:09 AM

If the law deems an individual is responsible enough to carry concealed, then what's wrong with trusting them to help protect our kinds?the law can be wrong about people who are supposed to protect our kids. a CHL doesn't certify sanity or good sense. sometimes, the CHL person would be the one who ends up shooting a kid -- maybe even accidentally -- over some silly shit.

Wild Cobra

12-25-2012, 04:11 AM

"Gee, It's Too Bad Nobody At Fort Hood Had Any Weapons To Stop That shooter."

But its Christmas....lets not argue...
Military bases I think are all gun free zones except for training times. I believe except for designated times, weapons are always required to be locked up.

Wild Cobra

12-25-2012, 04:13 AM

the law can be wrong about people who are supposed to protect our kids. a CHL doesn't certify sanity or good sense. sometimes, the CHL person would be the one who ends up shooting a kid -- maybe even accidentally -- over some silly shit.
Do you know how seldom anyone ever gets shot by a CHL holder? Your argument has no merit as it is extremely rare that someone gets shot as you describe by a CHL holder.

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 04:20 AM

Do you know how seldom anyone ever gets shot by a CHL holder? Your argument has no merit as it is extremely rare that someone gets shot as you describe by a CHL holder.How often does someone get shot by a mass murderer?

Winehole23

12-25-2012, 04:23 AM

very seldom, I believe

Winehole23

12-25-2012, 04:23 AM

therefore, it couldn't possibly happen

Winehole23

12-25-2012, 04:24 AM

or, there's no reasonable inference it might, according to WC.

Winehole23

12-25-2012, 04:27 AM

More guns make schools safer. It's just common sense. Whomever the state licenses to carry, is fit not only to keep the peace in public schools, but to take on mass murderers. No extra training required.

Wild Cobra

12-25-2012, 04:28 AM

How often does someone get shot by a mass murderer?
Far more often than by a CHL holder I bet.

Wild Cobra

12-25-2012, 04:29 AM

Winehole23

12-25-2012, 04:31 AM

I don't. Should have blued it, though the trend of my comments runs to the contrary . . .

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 04:42 AM

Far more often than by a CHL holder I bet.I'll ask you to post the odds for me.

Confidence in you is low.

Wild Cobra

12-25-2012, 04:44 AM

I don't. Should have blued it, though the trend of my comments runs to the contrary . . .
I knew what you were doing, but pushing my meaning outside of my intent shows you either don't want to, or cannot have an honest debate on this topic. Why are you acting like one of these other idiots?

Wild Cobra

12-25-2012, 04:45 AM

I'll ask you to post the odds for me.

Confidence in you is low.
That's OK. Low is better than the zero you are.

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 04:46 AM

I knew what you were doing, but pushing my meaning outside of my intent shows you either don't want to, or cannot have an honest debate on this topic. Why are you acting like one of these other idiots?Jeez, who has attempted an honest debate since Sandy Hook?

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 04:47 AM

That's OK. Low is better than the zero you are.So you're not going to post the respective odds?

Suspicion confirmed.

Wild Cobra

12-25-2012, 04:55 AM

So you're not going to post the respective odds?

Suspicion confirmed.
I stated it as an opinion. I'm sorry if you fail to understand that.

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 04:57 AM

I stated it as an opinion. I'm sorry if you fail to understand that.I completely understand you will never even attempt to back up something like that.

Wild Cobra

12-25-2012, 05:06 AM

I completely understand you will never even attempt to back up something like that.
I never understood your compulsion to attack people on their opinions. If you want to, show me that I'm wrong. Myself, I really don't care about your baiting. I just think you are being really pathetic with your methodology.

Winehole23

12-25-2012, 05:15 AM

so then, to question your methodology is pathetic . . .

Winehole23

12-25-2012, 05:17 AM

moreover, it's on us to prove you wrong, rather than on you to prove your own claims

that way, conveniently enough, you never have to do your own homework.

nifty!

Wild Cobra

12-25-2012, 05:37 AM

moreover, it's on us to prove you wrong, rather than on you to prove your own claims

that way, conveniently enough, you never have to do your own homework.

nifty!
I'm curious. Why are your panties in a bunch?

boutons_deux

12-25-2012, 09:35 AM

Top Conservative Magazine: Newtown Massacre Is The Price We Pay For The Second Amendment

The practical consequence of living for nearly two-and-a-half centuries under the almost universally benevolent protection of the Second Amendment is a society in which there are hundreds of millions of guns…Those upset with the order of things are welcome to try, and doomed to fail, to repeal the Second Amendment via the constitutional process. But the guns of America aren’t going anywhere any time soon, and generic calls to “do something” — even insofar as doing something is desirable — must reckon with this fact.

On Friday, the president promised “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” We doubt that something like this is possible, in a way consistent with the principle and the fact of the Second Amendment. If the possibility of terrors like Newtown are a reminder of why we need politics, their reality is a reminder that politics can do only so much.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/17/1347291/top-conservative-magazine-newtown-massacre-is-the-price-we-pay-for-the-second-amendment/

"politics can do only so much."

so mass murders are the price of impotent politics. But the perverted politics of the 2nd Amendment marketing smokescreen for SELLING MORE GUNS is not impotent.

DUNCANownsKOBE

12-25-2012, 10:07 AM

The point is, if it is a gun free zone, there is zero chance of a law abiding citizen there to stop it from being worse, once it starts.

Good point as we had law abiding citizens there to stop Holmes and Loughner.

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 11:01 AM

I never understood your compulsion to attack people on their opinions.That you consider a request to explain your position further an attack says a lot.[/quote]If you want to, show me that I'm wrong.[/quote]By failing to prove yourself right, you do my job for me.
Myself, I really don't care about your baiting. I just think you are being really pathetic with your methodology.To certainly cared enough to post this. If I'm attacking, I think your retreating is pathetic.

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 11:04 AM

The point is, if it is a gun free zone, there is zero chance of a law abiding citizen there to stop it from being worse, once it starts.Had you even a cursory knowledge of the Giffords shooting you would know your statement is completely untrue.

lol your methodology

Bill_Brasky

12-25-2012, 11:17 AM

Dumb people like WC don't understand that some people don't wanna feel like they HAVE to carry a gun everywhere just to be safe. Carrying around a killing machine everywhere you go out of fear kind of isn't the world a lot of people wanna live in.

FromWayDowntown

12-25-2012, 11:39 AM

No regularly enough to prevent mass shootings, apparently.

That, or there's always the possibility that psychopaths hellbent on mass murder aren't really deterred by the possibility of encountering an opposing gunman. It could be that some of these guys actually see the presence of other guns in their venue of choice as a desirable thing for the chance to create even more havoc and harm. It's not as if these gunmen are excellent rational thinkers -- and few (if any) of them choose to undertake a mass shooting with an eye toward surviving that event.

Merry Christmas to all.

DMC

12-25-2012, 11:57 AM

Who's going to pay for all the police in every school in America? How much will that cost? Does anyone even have a figure?

The same people who pay for public schools now, home owners. It will solve to problems at once, job creation and school security.

There's the straw man again. You've made far more than I in this thread.

It would only be a strawman if I claimed you suggested it., as you did with m>s and earlier with me. I simply posed a question, as that's the only way to effectively police the mental stability of the citizens of this country (never mind those who aren't even documented). Your suggestions are mushy and weak because they are just "en passant" with respect to the problem. It would be just as sensible for you to say "just fix the problems". You squirm any time I ask you to explain how these things are going to work. and you throw out a red herring like "well what about your plan?"

I simply don't think the only answer is more guns.
The anti-gun crowd seeks a feeling of safety, ignorant of guns or gun laws, ignorant of criminal mentality, ignorant of the limitations of legislation to effect crime, you seek a delusion of safety. I prefer to be safe by taking responsibility for my own safety. I know that we use force to protect the country, to protect our cities, to protect airports and even sporting events. Somehow when it comes to protecting our children force is out of the question.

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 12:07 PM

The same people who pay for public schools now, home owners. It will solve to problems at once, job creation and school security.A property tax increase might be a hard sell in many places. I didn't see the other questions answered.

It would only be a strawman if I claimed you suggested it., as you did with m>s and earlier with me. I simply posed a question, as that's the only way to effectively police the mental stability of the citizens of this country (never mind those who aren't even documented).lol it's OK when you ask a question. Quite hypocritical.
Your suggestions are mushy and weak because they are just "en passant" with respect to the problem. It would be just as sensible for you to say "just fix the problems". You squirm any time I ask you to explain how these things are going to work. and you throw out a red herring like "well what about your plan?"You merely create straw man after straw man that have nothing to do with what I actually said. It's your fault you can't understand even the simplest sentences and are stuck in combat mode with a person who you don't realize you largely agree with. It's a message board, not a theater shootout.

The anti-gun crowd seeks a feeling of safety, ignorant of guns or gun laws, ignorant of criminal mentality, ignorant of the limitations of legislation to effect crime, you seek a delusion of safety. I prefer to be safe by taking responsibility for my own safety. I know that we use force to protect the country, to protect our cities, to protect airports and even sporting events. Somehow when it comes to protecting our children force is out of the question.Your generalizations show you really don't read what other people write. You've got your dogma and preconceived notions and that's all you act on. You should preface your posts with a disclaimer that you only engage in monologue.

DUNCANownsKOBE

12-25-2012, 12:11 PM

DMC

12-25-2012, 12:12 PM

How often does someone get shot by a mass murderer?

Usually only once but sometimes more often.

DMC

12-25-2012, 12:15 PM

Had you even a cursory knowledge of the Giffords shooting you would know your statement is completely untrue.

lol your methodology

You have this thing for taking the opposite of what people say and attacking it. He said gun free zone. Giffords wasn't in a gun free zone. There's no guarantee anyone will carry a gun in public, but there's almost zero chance a law abiding citizen will carry one in a gun free zone.

Are you so hard up to respond that you don't even consider what you are responding to? You beginning to just blither tbh.

DMC

12-25-2012, 12:17 PM

A property tax increase might be a hard sell in many places. I didn't see the other questions answered.

lol it's OK when you ask a question. Quite hypocritical.You merely create straw man after straw man that have nothing to do with what I actually said. It's your fault you can't understand even the simplest sentences and are stuck in combat mode with a person who you don't realize you largely agree with. It's a message board, not a theater shootout.

Your generalizations show you really don't read what other people write. You've got your dogma and preconceived notions and that's all you act on. You should preface your posts with a disclaimer that you only engage in monologue.

You never answer a question, you just pose a counter question and attempt to go on the offensive. lol you

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 12:20 PM

Usually only once but sometimes more often.To be more precise, what are the odds of a person's dying in a mass shooting?

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 12:25 PM

You have this thing for taking the opposite of what people say and attacking it. He said gun free zone. Giffords wasn't in a gun free zone. There's no guarantee anyone will carry a gun in public, but there's almost zero chance a law abiding citizen will carry one in a gun free zone.I gave an example of a mass shooting in an area that was not a gun free zone.

It was an example that ran counter to his implied assertion.

Nothing more.

It's still a fact that cannot be refuted. It can only make people angry and try to make the thread about me for the next day or so.

Are you so hard up to respond that you don't even consider what you are responding to? You beginning to just blither tbh.I knew exactly what I was saying. You still haven't figured it out.

You never answer a question, you just pose a counter question and attempt to go on the offensive. lol youSorry. I've answered several questions that were not made of straw. You can't acknowledge the very plain answers I posted because you are in combat mode for whatever reason.

boutons_deux

12-25-2012, 04:55 PM

Xenophobic, Racist Gun Nuts Gone Wild!

Thousands sign U.S. petition to deport Piers Morgan over gun comments

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-piersmorgan-petitionbre8bn0m9-20121224,0,2442025.story

Wild Cobra

12-25-2012, 04:58 PM

DMC

12-25-2012, 05:01 PM

To be more precise, what are the odds of a person's dying in a mass shooting?

It depends on the severity of the wound.

DMC

12-25-2012, 05:05 PM

I gave an example of a mass shooting in an area that was not a gun free zone.

It was an example that ran counter to his implied assertion.

Nothing more.

Wrong, you said he was in error. He made a factual statement, you inferred that he was using it exclusively. He was merely responding to a misinterpretation of a previous post. Just own it already and let it go.

It's still a fact that cannot be refuted. It can only make people angry and try to make the thread about me for the next day or so.

According to you, everything you say is a fact that cannot be refuted. I refuted it quite easily.

I knew exactly what I was saying. You still haven't figured it out.

Sure you did. I just embarrassed you.

Sorry. I've answered several questions that were not made of straw. You can't acknowledge the very plain answers I posted because you are in combat mode for whatever reason.

You love clinging to this facade of victimization. If you love something, set it free.

:cry you're attacking me:cry

boutons_deux

12-25-2012, 05:10 PM

not at all.

the NR marketing A WANTs an America where everybody must buy and carry a gun to feel safe. Even the bad guys, who are a huge market for the shitbag gun mfrs/sellers.

DMC

12-25-2012, 05:25 PM

not at all.

the NR marketing A WANTs an America where everybody must buy and carry a gun to feel safe. Even the bad guys, who are a huge market for the shitbag gun mfrs/sellers.

CHL holders know the difference between a feeling of safety and a state of safety.

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 05:37 PM

Wrong, you said he was in error. He made a factual statement, you inferred that he was using it exclusively. He was merely responding to a misinterpretation of a previous post. Just own it already and let it go.It was a perfectly valid inference. There was a mass shooting that happened in a place that wasn't a gun free zone.

According to you, everything you say is a fact that cannot be refuted.No. I post opinions all the time which are, by definition, not facts.
I refuted it quite easily.I just refuted what you said quite easily.

Sure you did. I just embarrassed you.I'm sure that's what you want rather desperately at this point. Sorry.

You love clinging to this facade of victimization. If you love something, set it free.I am in no way a victim here. I kind of feel sorry for you at this point

:cry you're attacking me:cryThat's what you keep saying. I just said you are in attack mode because you're angry with me and anyone else who you feel is offending your precious gun mindset. That's fine. Just own it. You don't have to be so butch to have a conversation.

boutons_deux

12-25-2012, 08:51 PM

NRA blames video games for gun massacres? :lol

How The Gun Industry Profits From Violent Video Games

In a controversial diatribe on Friday, Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, blamed lax security, natural disasters, and, most of all, violent video games for the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT that claimed 27 lives. Despite the NRA’s public condemnation of violent entertainment, the New York Times explains, the gun industry is closely entwined with the gaming industry.

In one recent example of this relationship, the gaming company behind the Medal of Honor series launched a promotional website with links to the catalogs of two major gun manufacturers:

Links on the Medal of Honor site allowed visitors to click through on the Web sites of the game’s partners and peruse their catalogs.

“It was almost like a virtual showroom for guns,” said Ryan Smith, who contributes to the Gameological Society, an online gaming magazine. After Mr. Smith and other gaming enthusiasts criticized the site, Electronic Arts disabled the links, saying it had been unaware of them.

Gun manufacturers also grant video game companies licenses to depict real makes and models of weapons. Though these games are now taking heat from the gun lobby for encouraging violent behavior, they continue to serve as a valuable marketing tool for the industry.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/25/1376341/how-the-gun-industry-profits-from-violent-video-games/ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/25/1376341/how-the-gun-industry-profits-from-violent-video-games/)

:lol

DMC

12-25-2012, 09:55 PM

It was a perfectly valid inference. There was a mass shooting that happened in a place that wasn't a gun free zone.

But he wasn't in error to say that shootings happen in gun free zones. That was your faux pas.

No. I post opinions all the time which are, by definition, not facts.I just refuted what you said quite easily.

Your opinions on this topic have been based on emotional drivel, non fact based proselytizing and your usual bitch made attitude.

I'm sure that's what you want rather desperately at this point. Sorry.

Your constant yammering says otherwise.

I am in no way a victim here. I kind of feel sorry for you at this point

Sure you do. Keep saying it maybe you'll believe it after a while.

That's what you keep saying. I just said you are in attack mode because you're angry with me and anyone else who you feel is offending your precious gun mindset. That's fine. Just own it. You don't have to be so butch to have a conversation.

Here's the facts:

1. You are ignorant of gun laws
2. You are ignorant of guns
3. You have opinions on both

Add those up and you get a douchebag.

DMC

12-25-2012, 09:59 PM

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 10:19 PM

But he wasn't in error to say that shootings happen in gun free zones. That was your faux pas.Nor was I in error to say at least one happened outside a gun free zone.

Your opinions on this topic have been based on emotional drivel, non fact based proselytizing and your usual bitch made attitude.Nah, they're pretty realistic.

Your constant yammering says otherwise.your constant yammering says exactly what I said.

Sure you do. Keep saying it maybe you'll believe it after a while.Just as you might believe you've embarrassed me if you repeat it enough. As it is, you can't stop talking about me. I was perfectly fine talking about the actual topic. You were and are on a mission to make this personal. That's your problem and it doesn't look like you'll change anytime soon.

Here's the facts:

1. You are ignorant of gun laws
2. You are ignorant of guns
3. You have opinions on both
1. False.
2. False
3. True

Add those up and you get a douchebag.Eh, you're a douchebag no matter what you know or don't know.

I haven't even discussed any gun or laws or specifics about guns to this point. You're just projecting what you think is a typical gun control advocate onto me. If you spent as much time actually reading my posts as you do attempting some kind of "gotcha, librul!" moment -- you might realize this.

But you won't.

Fight on, internets warrior! Before I take your guns!

DMX7

12-25-2012, 11:04 PM

CHL holders know the difference between a feeling of safety and a state of safety.

A "state of safety"? Having a CHL and a CH does not create a state of safety. Hopefully, that's not what you're implying.

DMC

12-25-2012, 11:07 PM

Nor was I in error to say at least one happened outside a gun free zone.

You're being intentionally obtuse here. Your error was to call someone else out as being in error. Your word games don't impress me.

Nah, they're pretty realistic.

If that's true, you should lay out the plan on how these things would work, why they should be implemented, the existing issues with existing procedures and laws, how they should be changed and why. You cannot do any of that because it would cut into your snide remark troll shtick, and into your "give the other poster a task" shtick.

your constant yammering says exactly what I said.

That was a childish remark, you feel the need to "nuh uh" every point made.

Just as you might believe you've embarrassed me if you repeat it enough. As it is, you can't stop talking about me. I was perfectly fine talking about the actual topic. You were and are on a mission to make this personal. That's your problem and it doesn't look like you'll change anytime soon.

All of your responses are "well what about you" known as "tu quoque". You try way to hard to troll to be any good at it.

1. False.
2. False
3. True

It's obvious who knows what here.

Eh, you're a douchebag no matter what you know or don't know.

I haven't even discussed any gun or laws or specifics about guns to this point. For reasons I pointed out.

You're just projecting what you think is a typical gun control advocate onto me. Because that's what you are.

If you spent as much time actually reading my posts as you do attempting some kind of "gotcha, librul!" moment -- you might realize this.You've not said anything interesting.

But you won't.

Start a thread, give your take, don't be obtuse and dodgy about it.

But you won't. You don't want to surrender the ability to plausibly deny taking any stance you are held to.

Fight on, internets warrior! Before I take your guns!
You're the most notorious petty bickering participant here.

You know my stance.

CosmicCowboy

12-25-2012, 11:08 PM

Gun control legislation is DOA in Washington. Obama can "dialogue" all he wants between golf games. between Christmas, New Years, Bowl Games, The Fiscal Cliff, the Super Bowl etc. that crazy fucker in Connecticut will be old news before you know it.

DMC

12-25-2012, 11:12 PM

A "state of safety"? Having a CHL and a CH does not create a state of safety. Hopefully, that's not what you're implying.

There's the feeling of being safe, i.e. laying in your bed at night believing your doors are locked, or there's the state of being safe, i.e. locking your doors. CHL holders have the ability to mitigate a situation that develops too quickly for police to be of any help. Feeling that a cell phone is your lifeline to safety might be comfortable, but it's not going to stop at attack. I think that much was obvious from my post. No one is 100% safe, stop talking in absolutes. The CH's purpose is to give the holder the ability to use deadly force if needed to defend his/her life and/or the lives of loved ones.

I carry a spare tire. It doesn't make me feel like I won't be stranded on the side of the road, but it will give me the ability to mitigate the situation of a flat tire. I could just feel safe and not have a spare, or I could have a spare and still be aware that other things can happen (or a combination). I prefer to be as safe as I can.

LnGrrrR

12-25-2012, 11:15 PM

There's nothing wrong with commerce, with owning a gun, with buying a gun. There's something wrong with marketing the killing of innocents to kids. That's what a lot of these video games do, they desensitize kids to the concept of taking a life. You don't have to agree, but it's right there for you to check out.

Actually, most of those studies have been disproven when accounting for other factors. Killing people in video games isn't usually like killing a real person; it's merely an obstacle in the way. As video games got more "realistic" they needed more realistic enemies. I don't think kids ever fantasized about killing turtles because they played a lot of Super Mario Brothers. Frankly, I remember playing with army men as a kid, and pretending I was shooting bazookas, guns, etc etc. It's a matter of scale rather than kind.

And in 99% of video games, you're not killing "innocents". GTA is a notable one, but there's not many others that are mainstream. Most usually involve killing "bad guys".

CosmicCowboy

12-25-2012, 11:16 PM

I'm looking forward to the sales after everyone restocks. I was almost ready to pull the trigger on a Mossberg 715T before the shit hit the fan as a ranch beater/plinker but think I will just get Ruger 1022 conversion stuff and build up a killer tactical 1022 with new trigger, barrel, suppressor, etc. and buy a few thousand more rounds of .22 ammo.

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 11:20 PM

You're being intentionally obtuse here. Your error was to call someone else out as being in error. Your word games don't impress me.Nor do your weak attempts impress me. I know what was posted and I know what I posted.

If that's true, you should lay out the plan on how these things would work, why they should be implemented, the existing issues with existing procedures and laws, how they should be changed and why. You cannot do any of that because it would cut into your snide remark troll shtick, and into your "give the other poster a task" shtick.Oh, you want me to actually draft legislation on a message board. Awesome.

That was a childish remark, you feel the need to "nuh uh" every point made.Yes, you've been so mature this entire time.

All of your responses are "well what about you" known as "tu quoque". You try way to hard to troll to be any good at it.Not all my responses are, but pointing out your hypocrisy is pretty effective. As you get angrier you try to get fancier with your words, as if that would mask the inanity.

It's obvious who knows what here.Yes, it's obvious you have no idea what I have said about the actual topic.

For reasons I pointed out.No, for reasons I pointed out -- that you didn't read.

Because that's what you are.:lol

You've not said anything interesting.You couldn't tell -- you never read it.

Start a thread, give your take, don't be obtuse and dodgy about it.These are the threads. If you quit talking about me, maybe someone can discuss the topic.

But you won't. You don't want to surrender the ability to plausibly deny taking any stance you are held to.I've already stated my stance.

You're the most notorious petty bickering participant here.

You know my stance.And yet you've done none of what you demanded of me above. More hypocrisy.

And you don't know my stance because you didn't read it. You were too busy with your petty bickering.

CosmicCowboy

12-25-2012, 11:29 PM

So Chump, are you for gun control?

If so, how extensive?

ChumpDumper

12-25-2012, 11:32 PM

So Chump, are you for gun control?

If so, how extensive?I'm not in favor of introducing any new gun control legislation. Haven't seen anything that would make much difference.

Thanks for asking.

CosmicCowboy

12-25-2012, 11:35 PM

I'm not in favor of introducing any new gun control legislation. Haven't seen anything that would make much difference.

Thanks for asking.

I agree. I can shoot 10 ten round mags just as fast and accurately as I can 5 twenty round mags. Drop, load, recharge in under 2 seconds. Lots of political bullshit going nowhere fast.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-25-2012, 11:45 PM

I agree. I can shoot 10 ten round mags just as fast and accurately as I can 5 twenty round mags. Drop, load, recharge in under 2 seconds. Lots of political bullshit going nowhere fast.

And this boys and girls is why if you are going to have some sort of ban the ban needs to include all semiautos.

DMC

12-25-2012, 11:48 PM

Actually, most of those studies have been disproven when accounting for other factors. Killing people in video games isn't usually like killing a real person; it's merely an obstacle in the way. As video games got more "realistic" they needed more realistic enemies. I don't think kids ever fantasized about killing turtles because they played a lot of Super Mario Brothers. Frankly, I remember playing with army men as a kid, and pretending I was shooting bazookas, guns, etc etc. It's a matter of scale rather than kind.

And in 99% of video games, you're not killing "innocents". GTA is a notable one, but there's not many others that are mainstream. Most usually involve killing "bad guys".

In many of these games, you absolutely can kill innocents. In CoD there's a point in the single player game where you walk through an airport shooting innocent people.

Regardless, it's as much to blame as "too many guns" is to blame.

The truth is the school shootings are extremely rare. In fact mass shootings are rare. In a country of 300 million, the odds of being in a mass shooting are incredibly low. That doesn't make the families of the victims feel better, but because of the victims themselves, especially kids, we panic and try to apply patches when we don't even know where the blood is coming from.

DMC

12-25-2012, 11:49 PM

And this boys and girls is why if you are going to have some sort of ban the ban needs to include all semiautos.

A revolver can be reloaded with a speed reloader in just seconds.

It's not a semi-auto.

LnGrrrR

12-25-2012, 11:50 PM

I agree. I can shoot 10 ten round mags just as fast and accurately as I can 5 twenty round mags. Drop, load, recharge in under 2 seconds. Lots of political bullshit going nowhere fast.

You have to carry more magazines in the latter case though, and you introduce greater possibilities of a shooter making a mistake during a reload.

ElNono

12-25-2012, 11:51 PM

What ever happened to reasonable? If the law deems an individual is responsible enough to carry concealed, then what's wrong with trusting them to help protect our kinds?

Sorry, I don't particularly trust any third party. If given the option, I want guns as far away as possible from them. No CHL, no guards. If the tradeoff is that once in a blue moon some crazy fuck goes on a rampage, so be it. As FWD said, there's nothing logical or rational about these people and if they want to hurt people odds simply are that they will.

CosmicCowboy

12-25-2012, 11:51 PM

You have to carry more magazines in the latter case though, and you introduce greater possibilities of a shooter making a mistake during a reload.

Seemed to work out fine for the Virginia Tech shooter since he was in a gun free zone. As I remember 19 spare 10 round clips in his backpack. Weights the same. 100 rounds is 100 rounds. Clips don't weigh shit.

LnGrrrR

12-25-2012, 11:53 PM

Seemed to work out fine for the Virginia Tech shooter since he was in a gun free zone. As I remember 19 spare 10 round clips in his backpack.

Oh, I'm not saying it's a surefire way. Just that such legislation would introduce more chances for failure. (Dropping the clip, incorrect insertion, etc etc). The chances are slim, but having to put in two 15 round cartridges takes slightly more time and increases the chance for shooter error than one 30 round cartridge.

DMC

12-25-2012, 11:55 PM

You have to carry more magazines in the latter case though, and you introduce greater possibilities of a shooter making a mistake during a reload.

Magazines exist, banning the manufacture of new ones will not change that, it will just make existing ones more expensive, but there are plenty used magazines to be had.

The solution is deterrence. Even those who plan to die afterward will likely not engage if they know they might be shot at. You have to make it an undesirable act, remove the reward of killing numbers of people. There would still be those who walk into a police station and open fire, suicide by cop is better than mass killings.

CosmicCowboy

12-25-2012, 11:58 PM

Oh, I'm not saying it's a surefire way. Just that such legislation would introduce more chances for failure. (Dropping the clip, incorrect insertion, etc etc). The chances are slim, but having to put in two 15 round cartridges takes slightly more time and increases the chance for shooter error than one 30 round cartridge.

eh...thats a weakass argument and you know it but it's Christmas and I will let you slide. And FWIW ten round clips are the most reliable out there. it's the big clips that consistently have jam problems, even the OEM's. In Nam they would rather tape two 10's back to back than load 20's.

ChumpDumper

12-26-2012, 12:02 AM

Seemed to work out fine for the Virginia Tech shooter since he was in a gun free zone.Conversely, Loughner was disarmed by citizens not using guns after he dropped a clip (one was armed, but arrived after the shooting was over and never drew his gun). And no, I'm not advocating new clip laws -- just saying what happened.

BTW - Biased as the source is, Mother Jones put together an interactive map of all the mass/spree shootings in the US over the last 30 years. Just the facts are sobering stuff.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 12:07 AM

Conversely, Loughner was disarmed by citizens not using guns after he dropped a clip (one was armed, but arrived after the shooting was over and never drew his gun). And no, I'm not advocating new clip laws -- just saying what happened.

BTW - Biased as the source is, Mother Jones put together an interactive map of all the mass/spree shootings in the US over the last 30 years. Just the facts are sobering stuff.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Mother Jones should put together a map of people getting hit by lightning...now thats REALLY scary shit! Like 150X as many people killed by lightning as mass shootings.

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 12:13 AM

Before you ask...we average 54 fatalities a year from lightning strikes. Only about 10% are killed so there are another approximately 450 injured every year.

ChumpDumper

12-26-2012, 12:21 AM

Mother Jones should put together a map of people getting hit by lightning...now thats REALLY scary shit! Like 150X as many people killed by lightning as mass shootings.

Before you ask...we average 54 fatalities a year from lightning strikes. Only about 10% are killed so there are another approximately 450 injured every year.We had what, about 60 mass shooting deaths this year? I don't know how many injured. I'm sure the numbers are higher than average for whatever reason.

I don't think lightning strikes or swimming pools are political lightning rods, so to speak. Should they get more attention than they do? Maybe.

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 12:27 AM

We had what, about 60 mass shooting deaths this year? I don't know how many injured. I'm sure the numbers are higher than average for whatever reason.

I don't think lightning strikes or swimming pools are political lightning rods, so to speak. Should they get more attention than they do? Maybe.

Agree that statistically this year was much higher than normal. It happens.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 01:02 AM

A revolver can be reloaded with a speed reloader in just seconds.

It's not a semi-auto.

So you think that a revolver can keep with the rate of fire as a semiauto? Are you implying this?

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 01:19 AM

As for another thing. While the mass shootings are what precipitated this discussion one fact remains is that semiautomatic bans have a significant effect on gun homicides, suicides, accidents and the like.

Australia banned all semiauto and pump/lever action guns in the mid 90s after they had a mass shooting and here is a study on the effects of said ban.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

In the 18 years up to and including 1996, the year of the massacre at Port Arthur, Australia experienced 13 mass shootings. In these events alone, 112 people were shot dead and at least another 52 wounded (table 1).8 In the 10.5 years since Port Arthur and the revised gun laws, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia.

Table 2 shows that gun-related deaths (both in numbers and as a rate per 100 000) had been steadily falling throughout the years before the new gun laws were announced. In the 18 years (1979–96), there were 11 299 firearm deaths (annual average 627.7). In the 7 years for which reliable data are available after the announcement of the new gun laws, there were 2328 firearm deaths, (annual average 332.6). Figure 1G and table 3 indicate that although the rate per 100 000 of total firearm deaths was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this rate doubled to 6% after the introduction of gun laws. The ratio of trend estimates differed statistically from 1 (no effect; p = 0.03). The decline in total firearm deaths thus accelerated after the introduction of the gun laws.

Firearm suicides represent the largest component cause of total firearm deaths in Australia (more than three in four of all firearm deaths). In the 18 years (1979–96), there were 8850 firearm suicides (annual average 491.7). In the 7 years for which reliable data are available after the announcement of the new gun laws, there were 1726 firearm suicides, an annual average of 246.6. Figure 1E and table 3 indicate that while the rate of firearm suicide was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this more than doubled to 7.4% per year after the introduction of gun laws.

I would like to make one thing clear: I have been a supporter of liberal gun control policy. In fact I own many firearms myself. However recent issues as well as a mountain of statistical evidence from the rest of the first world after their bans has me rethinking my position.

If it was just an issue of keeping someone from hurting themselves, that is one thing but it's just not the case.