Look who actually attributed the correct post to the correct poster! You’re on your way!
Yeah, now that the game’s over, I did check your last couple posts. And IMO, you are not doing yourself any favors by telling people to read your posts more carefully.
You wrote that a sawed-off shotgun had “no intrinsic value other than to saw a man in half.”
I listed several advantages it had over a rifle for home defense, and you said, “No shit. I’d love to have one myself.” So I guess maybe it does have some value. And when I said I didn’t use full powered shells with 00 buckshot, which is what it would take to saw a man in half, you’re all, who said anything about buckshot?
I’m guessing your hero is Mitt Romney. You’ll say anything that fits the occasion, no matter what you said five minutes ago.
“they” (as in assault rifle) is a meaningless classification. It’s nothing but feel-good legislation to make people feel like something was done. It does ZERO to change the danger children are in. ZERO.
What would make a difference is the ability to defend children in school. That is what the legislation should focus on. This covers all threads and not just guns.
Well, sure, but we have to hope that Congress will write the law more carefully than we write our posts. Although given this congress, I agree there’s not a lot of reason for optimism.
But stuff like banning supersized clips is pretty easy to get specific, and it actually would make it harder for the lunatics. It may not prevent future attacks, but it might make them result in fewer casualties.
Voted for Obama. So far, he only supports an Assault Weapons ban, Romney actually signed one into law.
We can end this now if you’d like. We are both enthusiasts, you just choose to keep illegal guns, and you make the rest of us look bad. No matter how you want to parse what I said, or what you think I said, that’s not something that I am willing to look beyond.
No, it’s not going to prevent future attacks. And No, it’s not going result in fewer casualties. Clip comes out, clip goes in. Unless the shooter is Michael J. fox it’s not going to be a problem. This was a handful of kids killed and they would all be just as dead if the shooter used ANY gun sold today (he had 2 handguns that would have worked just fine). For that matter, they would be equally dead if he used ANY automobile sold today. The problem was not the gun. The problem was a crazy person who took advantage of a gun free zone to kill children. That is what has to be addressed in order to prevent future casualties.
In general rifles are more accurate than pistols. In general rifles are also easier to shoot well. The AR15 is a particularly easy rifle to shoot and control. So something is wrong with your story. My guess is you are overstating your experience level or you are not being entirely honest.
When the shooter was Jared Loughner, it did turn out to be a problem. He’s the guy who used a 33-round magazine in his Glock to shoot Congresswoman Gabbie Giffords and 18 other people, killing six of them, including a 9-year-old girl. Unarmed civilians subdued him while he was reloading.
So if a Seal Team member goes berserk, or an al Qaeda terrorist starts shooting, we’re in trouble, but they will probably have access to large clips anyway. But if some teenage loser decides to shoot up his high school, and only has access to what his parents bought legally, then limiting clip size could very well limit casualties.
Do you think that ban and confiscate legislation has a chance, even in today’s climate? Do you see any other way to address the problem as you describe it? I’m sure that you know that there are 100’s and 100’s of millions high capacity mags out there. Just wondering…
And he could have used more than one gun without reloading. The key problem in this scenario is CRAZY PERSON plus UNARMED CIVILIANS. He should have been dead when his gun came up.
Gifford was shot by a crazy person whose father had called authorities on. Just like the recent school shooting we have a mentally unstable person that people were aware of and there was no easy way of incarceration. Again, the problem is the crazy person. He could have driven a car through a crowd of people and continued on his merry way to repeat it until the gas tank is empty.
It’s unrealistic and pointless to go after gun types or accessories. There were over 25,000 drug overdose deaths in 2007 and the trend is going up but nobody bats an eye. A handful of adorable innocent kids die and the pitchforks come out.
You say reloading is too fast to matter. I give you an example where it absolutely mattered. You say, well, yeah, but he could have driven a car through them.
There is no point in arguing with logic like this. At least you’re one of the few here who hasn’t called me names, and I don’t propose to hang around till you do. You guys all have a happy new year.
I said it didn’t matter in the school shooting. You keep trying to apply a bandaid to a game of 9 pins. The solution doesn’t match the problem. This ain’t rocket surgery. The problem isn’t the clip size. That can easily be overcome by multiple guns or a 57 Buick. The problem is the crazy person. If you don’t address the problem then the solution(s) don’t matter.
You’re arguing a chicken/egg scenario. Yes, it can absolutely be more useful to use a clip of 30 or 60 or 100. I understand your point, I just disagree with it. If you take away the clips then Plan-B will be used. Then Plan-C and so on. You can’t legislate away the methods of killing. Can’t be done. All you can do is stop the crazy person.
I’m not going to call you names and I hope you have a happy new year.
Which children? The ones Koresh was fucking?
Look this is really a sidetrack, but was it a lawful warrant or not? I wasn’t aware that the number of people serving a warrant made it okay to kill them. I’m also not a fan of allowing individuals to own firearms for the purpose of preventing themselves for being investigated for child fucking.
Or was it the children the ATF burnt to a crisp?
Again, tangent, but this is crazy talk.
Although you have proven your point - heavily armed citizen can repel government forces, unless those government forces have access to fire.
Tell the parents in Newtown burying their children that assault weapons are meaningless.
Appeal to Emotion fallacy and a straw-man fallacy and all in one sentence, that takes skill.
The reality is that monster could have done the same damage with a pile of revolvers as others have, that was the point.
Rat Avatar’s correct point aside, I didn’t call them meaningless, Mr. Sinclair did.
Your appeal to emotion fallacy falls flat with me. Go post it on USA Today or something and I’m sure you well get a bunch of “likes” over there.
Taking your ball and going home? Good. The rest of us owners who are NOT felons will carry on. You have a good year too. Watch out for that black suburban with ATFE stenciled on the door. Those guys take a dim view on unregistered Title II guns. 10 years in a federal pound you in the ass prison, loss of your firearm rights, as well as a $10k fine is a bit much for me. YMMV.
Bullshit. I’d rather take my chances with a guy with a pair of six shooters than a weapon whose only purpose is to kill lots of people quickly.