27 dead at Connecticut Elementary School

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/100#post_3504398
You are exhibiting the same skull density the school administrator did. This isn't indoctrination, it's a generic safety program that teaches kids guns are not toys.
http://eddieeagle.nra.org/
There is no "skull density" except in your feeble brain. I don't care what you call it. The school has no right to dictate what non-curricular information can be taught in their schools. This falls inline with forcing public schools to teach religious classes. While you're teaching your "how to use gun" class, let's teach those little one's about the facts of life. We can start teaching sex ed at 7 or 8. I mean, it's something they need to know sooner or later, right?
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/100#post_3504392
You know, bionic you are assuming you see and know of the knife before chaos ensues. A little over fifteen years ago I was stabbed twice. Involved an altercation with a friend of mine. He had gotten in a fight with a guy. The guy pulled a knife. Stabbed my friend four times, me twice and two other people. Then escaped and ran off in a busy club. The crowd parted for him. No one tried to stop him except the bouncers at the door and they were stabbed as well and he escaped from the area. Pool sticks, chairs, bottles, All around. Not one used or thrown. Why? One word......chaos!
So if this guy would've had a knife instead of an AR-15, do you think he would've killed as many people as he did?
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/100#post_3504388
I understand your point but you don't really know this. 10 minutes can be an eternity. Speculating in hindsight about what would have happened if the school officials had access to a gun, if the guy had a knife, if you had a rock, whatever... it's a pointless debate because we'll all spin our hypotheticals to support our point.
But we've seen atrocities before. Airline personnel are trained and equipped to deal with someone with a weapon. We can't take back what's been done but we can learn something. A gun in a safe and staff with some training, maybe an armed guard for $50k per year, a security camera... something...
Don't have such tunnel vision to believe that it's impossible for someone to have gotten the drop on this guy. Even if 1 or 2 lives were saved, it's worth it.
I don't feel like finding the link but I just read the story of the maniac in Oregon who killed 2 people before being confronted by a guy with a ccw... the guy ran away to off himself. How much worse could that have been?
My school district have armed policemen at pretty much every school in the district. They run various shifts, but there's usually a presence at some point of the day. If the idiot Republican Governor's would supply a big enough budget to the various school districts in their state, you wouldn't need to arm someone who isn't trained to handle this type of situation.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/100#post_3504401
Just wanted to throw out there that I enjoyed a great morning today knocking off a hundred rounds at a trap and skeete range with a buddy of mine using a semi auto 12 gauge shotgun. Should those be banned as well?
Good for you. I did the same yesterday. If this guy had only a shotgun during his rampage, I guarantee you 90% of those victims would be alive today. Same thing if he had a bolt-action with a 5-round clip, same if he just had a 6-round revolver.
So far it's been reported this kid had no criminal history. He was known to have Asperger's, and some other forms of mental illness. But so far, no one has stated he had any violent tendencies. Something made him snap. No one knows why so far. Whose to say you wouldn't go "postal" for some unknown reason. Tragic personal event. Get fired from your job. Pick one. You coud be the kindest, most placid person on the planet, and something could set you off for no reason. Make sure and keep those multiple clips for your AR loaded. You too could become the next headline...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/40#post_3504213
Your argument is asinine....Again you want to infringe on good peoples rights and choices as to what they own.....As Reef pointed out why build cars that go 140mph, better yet why not totally ban alcohol and close up all the bars and such.....Kill way more innocent people as well.....We infringe on others, because a few totally lack respect for human life.
Normally I'd side with you at time bionicarm, but you want to infringe on mine and a bunch of other gun owners because of actions like this.....I feel for all the innocent involved, but must say my personal weapon has saved my little a$$ from being a statistic.....
Why should normal; rational people be punished or held accountable for a few whacks as Reef pointed out.....You might not feel a need to personal own a weapon like that , but if I chose to why should my "free choice" be hindered because of idiots.....

Again, I will ask you a simple question. Is there something unique that an assault rifle can accomplish, that say a 9mm or shotgun cannot? If you want to defend yourself at home, a 9mm would do the trick. You want to shoot a deer, a shotgun would do the trick. In what instance, in any way, do YOU, as an individual, need to possess an assault rifle? PLEASE ANSWER SPECIFICALLY TO THAT QUESTION AND THAT QUESTION ONLY. What SPECIFIC task do you need to obtain an assault rifle to accomplish?
Also, while yes cars do kill lots of people each and every year, their PRIMARY purpose is to transport people and goods. Fatty foods PRIMARY purpose is to feed and nourish. You want to make the alcohol and cigarette argument, i'll hear you on that, because realistically they do nothing but harm.
Let's talk about an assault rifle. Does it take your kids to soccer practice? Does it feed your body? Does it have any purpose, any purpose AT ALL, other than to inflict carnage on a large scale? You want to "protect" yourself, a 9mm will be more than enough to wave is someones face, or unload in a guys chest. Same with a deer. You put a 12 gauge bullet between Rudolf's eyes and he's not getting up.
Let's say that the kids Mom didn't have that assault rifle. Let's say he took the two hand guns in instead and used those exclusively. Some people argue it's all semantics at that point. I'll argue that if he had less firepower, that maybe instead of 26 dead bodies, you have ten. Maybe you have 20. Hell, maybe you have 25. The point is, even if it's ONE LIFE SAVED, don't you think that's worth it?
I don't want to take away your rights, I don't want to steal your second amendment. I just want to make it harder for people like Adam Lanza to get ahold of these weapons.
 

crimzy

Active Member
... Even if 1 or 2 lives were saved, it's worth it...
The point is, even if it's ONE LIFE SAVED, don't you think that's worth it? 
You stole my line...
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
So if this guy would've had a knife instead of an AR-15, do you think he would've killed as many people as he did?
Now you are changing the argument. I already linkled you to knife massacres at other schools.
In this situation...It might not have been 26, but it could have been 20 easily. By pass the admin office and go straight into a kindergarten class room....
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

Again, I will ask you a simple question.  Is there something unique that an assault rifle can accomplish, that say a 9mm or shotgun cannot?  If you want to defend yourself at home, a 9mm would do the trick.  You want to shoot a deer, a shotgun would do the trick.  In what instance, in any way, do YOU, as an individual, need to possess an assault rifle? PLEASE ANSWER SPECIFICALLY TO THAT QUESTION AND THAT QUESTION ONLY.  What SPECIFIC task do you need to obtain an assault rifle to accomplish?
Also, while yes cars do kill lots of people each and every year, their PRIMARY purpose is to transport people and goods.  Fatty foods PRIMARY purpose is to feed and nourish.  You want to make the alcohol and cigarette argument, i'll hear you on that, because realistically they do nothing but harm.
Let's talk about an assault rifle.  Does it take your kids to soccer practice?  Does it feed your body?  Does it have any purpose, any purpose AT ALL, other than to inflict carnage on a large scale?  You want to "protect" yourself, a 9mm will be more than enough to wave is someones face, or unload in a guys chest.  Same with a deer.  You put a 12 gauge bullet between Rudolf's eyes and he's not getting up.
Let's say that the kids Mom didn't have that assault rifle.  Let's say he took the two hand guns in instead and used those exclusively.  Some people argue it's all semantics at that point.  I'll argue that if he had less firepower, that maybe instead of 26 dead bodies, you have ten.  Maybe you have 20.  Hell, maybe you have 25.  The point is, even if it's ONE LIFE SAVED, don't you think that's worth it? 
I don't want to take away your rights, I don't want to steal your second amendment.  I just want to make it harder for people like Adam Lanza to get ahold of these weapons. 
Ok, lets try it a different angle and maybe you will understand. cars have a useful purpose. guns have a useful purpose. Now in order for cars to serve their useful purpose they do not need to travel any faster than 75 mph. The exception being law enforcement. How many high speed chaces would this reduce? How many injuries and deaths do high speed chases cause daily in this country? Cars driven by those under the influence of alcohol are highly dangerous and proven to kill more than any other act of man. Shouldn't all cars be fitted with interlocks at the time of purchase? Your shotgun and "hand guns" are your average use cars. The ar platforms are your cars that have the horse power to exceed 75 MPH. What logical reason does anyone have to own a car that can go this fast?
I can pull up statistics that drunk driving and cars driving at high speeds cause more deaths in this country than firearms daily. Compare that to deaths by "assault" weapons and it is night and day. BUT NO ONE EVER calls for these safety measures. Why is that?
Now lets compare columbine to this. Columbine occurred during the assault weapons ban that used to be in place.
The weapons used are as followed..
Dylan -- Intratec TEC-DC9 (9-mm semi-automatic handgun) attached to a strap slung over his shoulder (under coat), Savage 311-D 12-gauge double-barrel shotgun (barrel sawed down to approximately 23 inches, initially half-hidden in Dylan's cargos).
Eric -- 10-shot Hi-Point model 995 carbine rifle on a strap (under coat), Savage-Springfield 67H 12-gauge pump shotgun he called 'Arlene' (named after a Doom character - initially in one of the duffels carried to the top of the grassy knoll -- stock and barrel sawed off, reducing the entire gun to 26 inches).
Dylan --
9mm rounds fired:
outside the school: 3, inside the school: 31, library: 21
(total 55)
Shotgun rounds fired:
outside the school: 2, inside the school: 4, library: 6
(total 12)
Total rounds fired: 67
Eric --
9mm rounds fired:
outside the school: 47, inside the school: 36, library: 13
(total 96)
Shotgun rounds fired:
inside the school: 4, Library: 21
(total 25)
Total rounds fired: 121
But wait, there were home made bombs as well....
48 -- Carbon Dioxide bombs
27 -- Pipe bombs
11 -- 1.5 gallon propane bombs
7 -- gas or napalm bombs
2 -- 20 pound propane bombs
As well as a total of 7 knives which they never used....
Only two shots can be fired from a double-barreled shotgun before the shooter must reload by breaking the barrel open, manually inserting two new rounds, and closing the gun. A pump shotgun can be fired as fast as the gunman can pump and shoot. It shoots much faster than the double-barreled type because spent shells are ejected and a live shell manually slides into place. A gunman can shoot five rounds with the pump shotgun before the weapon must be reloaded.
Now I have two questions for those that support the "assault" weapons ban. Were these two not able to create as much chaos and murder without assault weapons?
The other question...why no cry for interlock devices on all vehicles and governors limiting our speed?
Answer those two questions and I will honestly say, you have a leg to stand on. If not...you are basing all your judgement strictly off emotion and not sound logic. After all, the end goal is saving lives, is it not?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/120#post_3504403
There is no "skull density" except in your feeble brain. I don't care what you call it. The school has no right to dictate what non-curricular information can be taught in their schools. This falls inline with forcing public schools to teach religious classes. While you're teaching your "how to use gun" class, let's teach those little one's about the facts of life. We can start teaching sex ed at 7 or 8. I mean, it's something they need to know sooner or later, right?
You can't possibly be as box of rocks stupid as this post indicates. First off Schools dictate what non curricular information or programs are included every day. Sex ed is taught in school in every state (5) I've lived in. 0bama has favored teaching it to kids in the second grade although I think that is extreme and out of touch.
But if you had bothered to click the link or even read my description of the program you would know it had N O T H I N G to do with firearms handling in any way.
What they teach is if you see a gun don't touch it. Run and tell an adult. But you already made up your mind about it based on your passionate dislike of the NRA. Pitiful. I feel sorry for you.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/120#post_3504405
My school district have armed policemen at pretty much every school in the district. They run various shifts, but there's usually a presence at some point of the day. If the idiot Republican Governor's would supply a big enough budget to the various school districts in their state, you wouldn't need to arm someone who isn't trained to handle this type of situation.
Maybe if the idiot Democrats would quit insisting we provide public benefits to illegals there would be money to budget for an armed cop at every school.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/120#post_3504426
Again, I will ask you a simple question. Is there something unique that an assault rifle can accomplish, that say a 9mm or shotgun cannot? If you want to defend yourself at home, a 9mm would do the trick. You want to shoot a deer, a shotgun would do the trick. In what instance, in any way, do YOU, as an individual, need to possess an assault rifle? PLEASE ANSWER SPECIFICALLY TO THAT QUESTION AND THAT QUESTION ONLY. What SPECIFIC task do you need to obtain an assault rifle to accomplish?
Also, while yes cars do kill lots of people each and every year, their PRIMARY purpose is to transport people and goods. Fatty foods PRIMARY purpose is to feed and nourish. You want to make the alcohol and cigarette argument, i'll hear you on that, because realistically they do nothing but harm.
Let's talk about an assault rifle. Does it take your kids to soccer practice? Does it feed your body? Does it have any purpose, any purpose AT ALL, other than to inflict carnage on a large scale? You want to "protect" yourself, a 9mm will be more than enough to wave is someones face, or unload in a guys chest. Same with a deer. You put a 12 gauge bullet between Rudolf's eyes and he's not getting up.
Let's say that the kids Mom didn't have that assault rifle. Let's say he took the two hand guns in instead and used those exclusively. Some people argue it's all semantics at that point. I'll argue that if he had less firepower, that maybe instead of 26 dead bodies, you have ten. Maybe you have 20. Hell, maybe you have 25. The point is, even if it's ONE LIFE SAVED, don't you think that's worth it?
I don't want to take away your rights, I don't want to steal your second amendment. I just want to make it harder for people like Adam Lanza to get ahold of these weapons.
Those handguns each held 15 rounds and you could carry a lot more spare mags for them than the AR. Guess what caliber the original "assault weapon", the Uzi is? 9mm. For years that was the round of choice for cops and military side arms. Those kids would be just as dead with multiple 9mm rounds in them.
But let's get down the the ultimate goal of saving lives. A complete ban on serving alcohol anywhere but a private residence would save more innocent lives than anything else we could ever imagine. If the motive is saving lives why not start there? Then we can work our way down to guns which I believe are the 4th largest cause of "preventable" deaths (although death by justifiable use tends to be included in the reported numbers so it might be lower.)
Or we could do something smart and deal with the people with the mental problems who might just figure a lit flare taped to a plastic can of gas bounced off a wall is a pretty effective WMD too. I really have no issue with expanding background checks to private sales. I also think anyone who sees a shrink should be added to the do not buy list. Just include a provision where the doc can sign off on a release the patient can send in to get their right to buy reinstated if they don't have any serious mental issues.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/120#post_3504434
Now you are changing the argument. I already linkled you to knife massacres at other schools.
In this situation...It might not have been 26, but it could have been 20 easily. By pass the admin office and go straight into a kindergarten class room....
Come on reef. you can't be that dense just to "stand your ground" on the argument. There is absolutely no way some idiot with nothing more than a knife could create the same carnage you can do with an AR-15. You think those kids would just are just going to sit there saying, "OK Mr. Knife Killer. I'm next! Stab me! Stab me!" Like I said, reports show at least two, if not three, administrators tried to tackle this guy, even though he had an AR pointed at them. You don't think 2 or 3 people jumping on a guy with a knife at once, they couldn't get the knife away? Would the guy been able to even break the glass door with just a knife? I'm sure any rational person who saw someone attempting to break in with just a knife in their hand, could find something lying around to protect themselves from getting stabbed. You could simply wrap a coat around your arm to use that as protection as you're trying to grab the assailants arm that's holding the knife.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/120#post_3504441
Those handguns each held 15 rounds and you could carry a lot more spare mags for them than the AR. Guess what caliber the original "assault weapon", the Uzi is? 9mm. For years that was the round of choice for cops and military side arms. Those kids would be just as dead with multiple 9mm rounds in them.
But let's get down the the ultimate goal of saving lives. A complete ban on serving alcohol anywhere but a private residence would save more innocent lives than anything else we could ever imagine. If the motive is saving lives why not start there? Then we can work our way down to guns which I believe are the 4th largest cause of "preventable" deaths (although death by justifiable use tends to be included in the reported numbers so it might be lower.)
Or we could do something smart and deal with the people with the mental problems who might just figure a lit flare taped to a plastic can of gas bounced off a wall is a pretty effective WMD too. I really have no issue with expanding background checks to private sales. I also think anyone who sees a shrink should be added to the do not buy list. Just include a provision where the doc can sign off on a release the patient can send in to get their right to buy reinstated if they don't have any serious mental issues.
Again, and for the 384,20,834,775th time (since you didn't answer my question the first two times), why do you NEED an assault rifle versus a 9mm or shotgun? It's a simple question that neither you, or any other of your gun buddies wants to answer. Instead of deflecting and asking about cars and alcohol, why not just answer that question. Why do you, in any scenario, need an assault rifle versus other options? The only real answer is "because you can". Which is what upsets me with the NRA crowd. You don't really care about saving lives, you simply care that an amendment written hundreds of years ago under completely different pretenses won't be "taken" from you.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/120#post_3504435
Ok, lets try it a different angle and maybe you will understand. cars have a useful purpose. guns have a useful purpose. Now in order for cars to serve their useful purpose they do not need to travel any faster than 75 mph. The exception being law enforcement. How many high speed chaces would this reduce? How many injuries and deaths do high speed chases cause daily in this country? Cars driven by those under the influence of alcohol are highly dangerous and proven to kill more than any other act of man. Shouldn't all cars be fitted with interlocks at the time of purchase? Your shotgun and "hand guns" are your average use cars. The ar platforms are your cars that have the horse power to exceed 75 MPH. What logical reason does anyone have to own a car that can go this fast?
I can pull up statistics that drunk driving and cars driving at high speeds cause more deaths in this country than firearms daily. Compare that to deaths by "assault" weapons and it is night and day. BUT NO ONE EVER calls for these safety measures. Why is that?
Now lets compare columbine to this. Columbine occurred during the assault weapons ban that used to be in place.
The weapons used are as followed..
Dylan -- Intratec TEC-DC9 (9-mm semi-automatic handgun) attached to a strap slung over his shoulder (under coat), Savage 311-D 12-gauge double-barrel shotgun (barrel sawed down to approximately 23 inches, initially half-hidden in Dylan's cargos).
Eric -- 10-shot Hi-Point model 995 carbine rifle on a strap (under coat), Savage-Springfield 67H 12-gauge pump shotgun he called 'Arlene' (named after a Doom character - initially in one of the duffels carried to the top of the grassy knoll -- stock and barrel sawed off, reducing the entire gun to 26 inches).
Dylan --
9mm rounds fired:
outside the school: 3, inside the school: 31, library: 21
(total 55)
Shotgun rounds fired:
outside the school: 2, inside the school: 4, library: 6
(total 12)
Total rounds fired: 67
Eric --
9mm rounds fired:
outside the school: 47, inside the school: 36, library: 13
(total 96)
Shotgun rounds fired:
inside the school: 4, Library: 21
(total 25)
Total rounds fired: 121
But wait, there were home made bombs as well....
48 -- Carbon Dioxide bombs
27 -- Pipe bombs
11 -- 1.5 gallon propane bombs
7 -- gas or napalm bombs
2 -- 20 pound propane bombs
As well as a total of 7 knives which they never used....
Only two shots can be fired from a double-barreled shotgun before the shooter must reload by breaking the barrel open, manually inserting two new rounds, and closing the gun. A pump shotgun can be fired as fast as the gunman can pump and shoot. It shoots much faster than the double-barreled type because spent shells are ejected and a live shell manually slides into place. A gunman can shoot five rounds with the pump shotgun before the weapon must be reloaded.
Now I have two questions for those that support the "assault" weapons ban. Were these two not able to create as much chaos and murder without assault weapons?
The other question...why no cry for interlock devices on all vehicles and governors limiting our speed?
Answer those two questions and I will honestly say, you have a leg to stand on. If not...you are basing all your judgement strictly off emotion and not sound logic. After all, the end goal is saving lives, is it not?
Darth, you car analogy doesn't hold water. Yes they can cause as many deaths as an assault rifle, but they are used 100,000 more times per day than somerone who would shoot someone with an AR-15. How many millions of cars travel daily in virtually every town in America? How often do gun owners shoot their AR's? I have several friends that own one. I was at a party with one of those individuals this weekend, and I was asking him the last time he went to the shooting range. He hadn't been in 3 months. However, he uses his car every single day, and has a 20 mile one-way commute to work. So simple math and statistics would show that he would be 100,000 times more vulnerable of getting smacked by some DUI driver, or some Speed Racer driving 100 in a 70, than he would be of getting shot by some maniac popping cars with his AR on an overpass. Like I said, do the simple math. Take the number of hours some gun owner shoots his AR in a months time frame, and divide that by the number of AR's that are currently owned. Now take the number of hours every single car in America is driven in a months timeframe, and divide that buy the number of registered vehicles in this country. See which percentage is lower. That's why cars are more apt to cause deaths than an AR.
As far as your Columbine scenario? Who knows. How many of those kids could've escaped while they were reloading those shotguns? I shoot my Remington 1100 all the time at skeet, it holds up to three shells. For me to grab 3 shells from a table, load them into the gun, then cock one into the chamber takes about 1 1/2 minutes, maybe 1 minute if I really want to go fast. I'm also not having to keep constant lookout for the possibility of something getting thrown at me, or someone trying to take me down in the process. My vision is focused on getting the shells in, and insuring that the first shell gets loaded into the barrel properly while I'm performing this procedure. Perfect opportunity for several of those victims to run out. Maybe even enough time for some brave soul to try and tackle the guy before he has the opportunity to get it reloaded. Then there's the distance factor. Unless you're using buckshot, the effective range of a shotgun is what, 30 yards? Even then you'd probably only get hit with enough BB's that wouldn't cause fatal damage. An AR on the other hand, I can kick out, load a new 30-round clip, and "cock" that weapon in about 10 seconds. My range is 150 - 200 yards with a high mortality rate depending on where I hit my target. The same can be said with a 9mm handgun. The fatal disatnce is at least twice as far as a shotgun's. You can shoot 3 times more bullets in one load than you can a shotgun. Takes the same 10 seconds or less to reload a 9mm. Don't factor in all the bombs and crap. This guy in Connecticut didn't have those devices (as far as we know). Simple math and plain statistics states you'd have a higher survival rate with someone who just had shotgun's as opposed to someone who had a variety of semi-auto weapons at their disposal in either of these school scenarios's. You can try justifying your rationale all you want, but if you have an inkling of knowledge about these weapons and their capabilities, then you know I'm right.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/120#post_3504436
You can't possibly be as box of rocks stupid as this post indicates. First off Schools dictate what non curricular information or programs are included every day. Sex ed is taught in school in every state (5) I've lived in. 0bama has favored teaching it to kids in the second grade although I think that is extreme and out of touch.
But if you had bothered to click the link or even read my description of the program you would know it had N O T H I N G to do with firearms handling in any way.
What they teach is if you see a gun don't touch it. Run and tell an adult. But you already made up your mind about it based on your passionate dislike of the NRA. Pitiful. I feel sorry for you.
Reef, THAT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARENTS. What don't you get? There are parents out there that have a mortal fear of guns. Why force my kid to learn about gun safety or how to handle a gun when I'll never own one? If I'm a RESPONSIBLE parent, I'd know which of my friends or family members owned guns, and how they store and use them. Kidss see guns all the time on TV, and even in their video games. They have some comprehensible understanding that guns kill. There's no logical value in them knowing that if they see a gun, run and tell Mommy.
I don't have a "passionate dislike of the NRA". Hell, I was a member for over 10 years in the 70's and 80's. I just don't get their myopic mentalities these days where they have this tunnel vision over what the 2nd was actually intended for, and their conspiracies that someone is going to come and take their guns away at any moment. I don't get the logic behind owning 20 weapons "just because". It's a childish macho thing - "I got more and bigger guns than you. Naw, nee, naw, nee, naw, naw." They get some warped adrenalin rush because they can destroy a gas can in 10 seconds popping $15 of ammo at the same time.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
You people better start hidin your guns. Obama spoke last night in Newtown, and said "something" needs to be done to protect the future of our children. He didn't get into specifics, but I guarantee you the issue of assault rifles will be hitting Congress sometime the first part of next yeart.
 

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/120#post_3504452
You people better start hidin your guns. Obama spoke last night in Newtown, and said "something" needs to be done to protect the future of our children. He didn't get into specifics, but I guarantee you the issue of assault rifles will be hitting Congress sometime the first part of next yeart.
Mandatory bullet proof "turtle" suites for all children. Whoever creates and pattens it will be rich....it could be cool looking, like a spider-man suite, that covers from head to toe, we have the technology. Maybe go on that show "Shark tank" and get some funding. That suite they used in an advertisement for the lottery for life would work just fine.
SOMETHING could mean many things besides taking your guns away, because there are still way too many weapons in the hands of the bad guys already to try and stop it. It's the computer age, we could do school classes without leaving home. TV has been teaching kids since I was little. Having all our children in a cluster needs to be changed...they are targets now, and we need to evolve. The teachers have been bellyaching for years about the over-sized classes. Maybe only have the kids who can't learn well go to school for one on one help.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/120#post_3504447
Again, and for the 384,20,834,775th time (since you didn't answer my question the first two times), why do you NEED an assault rifle versus a 9mm or shotgun? It's a simple question that neither you, or any other of your gun buddies wants to answer. Instead of deflecting and asking about cars and alcohol, why not just answer that question. Why do you, in any scenario, need an assault rifle versus other options? The only real answer is "because you can". Which is what upsets me with the NRA crowd. You don't really care about saving lives, you simply care that an amendment written hundreds of years ago under completely different pretenses won't be "taken" from you.
And like I said upthread if we are going to start letting the government take away things we don't NEED that cause death let's prioritize by number of deaths caused a year. "Assault Weapons" will be about 100th on the list.
Let's say you could wave your magic wand and make all the boogymen go away. The next whack job will use a lever action, then we can ban them. And so on. What happens when after that someone uses a fire bomb? We need to concentrate on the cause here, unstable people who are running around unsupervised and untreated.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/120#post_3504450
Reef, THAT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARENTS. What don't you get? There are parents out there that have a mortal fear of guns. Why force my kid to learn about gun safety or how to handle a gun when I'll never own one? If I'm a RESPONSIBLE parent, I'd know which of my friends or family members owned guns, and how they store and use them. Kidss see guns all the time on TV, and even in their video games. They have some comprehensible understanding that guns kill. There's no logical value in them knowing that if they see a gun, run and tell Mommy.
I don't have a "passionate dislike of the NRA". Hell, I was a member for over 10 years in the 70's and 80's. I just don't get their myopic mentalities these days where they have this tunnel vision over what the 2nd was actually intended for, and their conspiracies that someone is going to come and take their guns away at any moment. I don't get the logic behind owning 20 weapons "just because". It's a childish macho thing - "I got more and bigger guns than you. Naw, nee, naw, nee, naw, naw." They get some warped adrenalin rush because they can destroy a gas can in 10 seconds popping $15 of ammo at the same time.
~~~~~~SNORT~~~~~~
AGAIN, 3rd time here, THIS DOESN'T TEACH ABOUT GUN HANDLING. So it's proper for schools to teach about "Stranger Danger" Sex Education, Drug Education, Look Both Ways Before Crossing the Street but not what to do if you go to your friend's house and there is a gun sitting on the table?
 
Top