Great time to be in public schools in San Antonio

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/80#post_3544643
Why do you need guns again? If someone sneaks up behind you with a club or knife, a gun is useless. Someone has a chance to survive being hit with a Louisville Slugger, less likely with a gun. You have a better chance at escaping someone swinging a bat or a knife at you. Someone pointing a gun at you can hit you as far away as 30 feet. Can you hit someone the same distance away with a bat or knife? That kid who ran through the school with two kitchen knives injured 20 people. If I remember, there were no fatalities. Same kind of person ran through Sandy Hook with a Bushmaster. How many kids died in that melee again? If he'd only had a couple knives or a bat, do you think the same number of kids would've died?
If the people at Sandy Hook had the opportunity to have a gun they would have been on equal ground and had a chance to stop the shooter. What you fail to acknowledge is it's already illegal to shoot somebody unless they are a threat to your life. Criminals don't follow the law. When you make it harder for honest citizens to own a gun you make it more likely that they will become an unarmed victim. Just look at Chicago and DC where it's so hard to legally buy a gun.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/100#post_3544650
If the people at Sandy Hook had the opportunity to have a gun they would have been on equal ground and had a chance to stop the shooter. What you fail to acknowledge is it's already illegal to shoot somebody unless they are a threat to your life. Criminals don't follow the law. When you make it harder for honest citizens to own a gun you make it more likely that they will become an unarmed victim. Just look at Chicago and DC where it's so hard to legally buy a gun.
That supposition and conjecture. If the guy at Sandy Hook had nothing more than knives, he probably wouldn't have made it past the front office. You don't know what the outcome would've been if one of the teachers or administrators had a gun. Unless every single person in the place had a gun, then it would be moot point if the assailant shot the only person with a gun first. Unless the school personnel walked around with a gun strapped to their side, who knows if they could access their firearm before they got shot by the assailant. If someone in the Aurora theater had a gun, it most likely would've been moot point since the shooter in that incident was wearing kevlar tactical gear, with maybe part of his legs exposed. So somebody with a gun could shoot that guy in a vulnerable area of his body in a dark movie theater that was filled with smoke? Highly unlikely.

Illegal to shoot somebody unless they are a threat to your life? I read stories all the time where people get shot by someone who they claim felt threatened, when in fact the other person was unarmed and running away. Treyvon Martin comes to mind.

Chicago and DC? Guess you didn't read my response to that conspiracy theory. The only difficulty in buying a gun in those two towns is having to drive 50 to 100 miles to another state to buy one there. Yet again, you claim that gun violence is at its lowest. More people die in cars and swimming pools. So why do you need to protect yourself from something that isn't relevant in the first place?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/100#post_3544662
That supposition and conjecture. If the guy at Sandy Hook had nothing more than knives, he probably wouldn't have made it past the front office. You don't know what the outcome would've been if one of the teachers or administrators had a gun. Unless every single person in the place had a gun, then it would be moot point if the assailant shot the only person with a gun first. Unless the school personnel walked around with a gun strapped to their side, who knows if they could access their firearm before they got shot by the assailant. If someone in the Aurora theater had a gun, it most likely would've been moot point since the shooter in that incident was wearing kevlar tactical gear, with maybe part of his legs exposed. So somebody with a gun could shoot that guy in a vulnerable area of his body in a dark movie theater that was filled with smoke? Highly unlikely.

Illegal to shoot somebody unless they are a threat to your life? I read stories all the time where people get shot by someone who they claim felt threatened, when in fact the other person was unarmed and running away. Treyvon Martin comes to mind.

Chicago and DC? Guess you didn't read my response to that conspiracy theory. The only difficulty in buying a gun in those two towns is having to drive 50 to 100 miles to another state to buy one there. Yet again, you claim that gun violence is at its lowest. More people die in cars and swimming pools. So why do you need to protect yourself from something that isn't relevant in the first place?

"had the opportunity to have a gun they would have been on equal ground and had a chance to stop the shooter"
Today's language comprehension lesson. "Had a chance to stop the shooter" doesn't mean the same thing as for instance "Would have stopped the shooter". When you disarm honest citizens who obey the law you leave them defenseless against those who could care less about the law.

Martin again? Zimmermans face and head debunk that argument but you're just trying to deflect cause you got nothing LOL!

We have seen for a fact strict gun laws in Chicago and DC don't work. Even if you could ban guns what about the millions already out there? And the fact they would simply flow in across the border like the drugs and illegals we have already seen can't be stopped by this government.

And it all comes back to the issue here is people getting killed. If people were so concerned about preventing death they would Go after the guns that cause by far the most deaths instead of those scary assault rifles but this isn't about that. It's about getting a foot in the door to ban all guns in violation of the US Constitution.

 

[bang guy]

Imagine how many lives could be saved if firearms were banned from registered Democrats.

 

[bang guy]

Here are the gun crime statistics I was looking for

The top 10 guns used in crimes in the United States, according to a
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms report:
1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic


Where are all the scary weapons?

 

[reefraff]

Yep. More people are killed each year by hammers than by rifles in general, let alone assault rifles.
.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

 

[geridoc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/100#post_3544674
Here are the gun crime statistics I was looking for

The top 10 guns used in crimes in the United States, according to a
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms report:
1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic


Where are all the scary weapons?
Well, let's see: a Smith and Wesson .38 revolver pointed at me is very scary; a Ruger 9 mm semi would scare the bejesus ouyt of me; point a Lorcin Engineering .380 in my direction and I'm out of here; don't get me started on how frightened I am of being multi-holed by a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun...you see where I'm going with this?

 

[reefraff]

I've got 3 different handguns I'd pick over an ar 15 if I was looking to do the most damage to someone.
My favorite "Intimidater" guns are large caliber stainless pistols. No doubt about how big the hole the slug is coming out of is.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/100#post_3544674
Here are the gun crime statistics I was looking for

The top 10 guns used in crimes in the United States, according to a
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms report:
1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic


Where are all the scary weapons?
As long as guns are available to the average citizen, you're going to have crimes where guns are used. The "scary weapons" are the one's where you see the headlines where multiple deaths occur due to some Democrat OR Republican that decided they wanted to make a name for themselves before they blow their own heads off.

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/100#post_3544687
Well, let's see: a Smith and Wesson .38 revolver pointed at me is very scary; a Ruger 9 mm semi would scare the bejesus ouyt of me; point a Lorcin Engineering .380 in my direction and I'm out of here; don't get me started on how frightened I am of being multi-holed by a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun...you see where I'm going with this?

Touche! You win that round.

The politicians are telling people to be afraid of folding stocks, silencers, rifles with pistol grips, etc. When the facts show people should be more afraid of a registered $400 6 shot revolver.

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/100#post_3544693
As long as guns are available to the average citizen, you're going to have crimes where guns are used. The "scary weapons" are the one's where you see the headlines where multiple deaths occur due to some Democrat OR Republican that decided they wanted to make a name for themselves before they blow their own heads off.

Luckily for the average citizen our forefathers had the insight to guarantee our right to protect ourselves.

Your talking heads have brainwashed you to believe an AR with a folding stock is the ultimate weapon to fear. I find it scarier to consider the weapon that kills 1000's one at a time vs the mass murder where a dozen are killed every few years or so.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/100#post_3544681
Yep. More people are killed each year by hammers than by rifles in general, let alone assault rifles.
.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/
You're starting to sound like an idiotic broken record. Guess you need to stay away from deranged handymen. How many of those deaths occurred when the victim was more than 30 feet away from the wielding hammer nutjob? Maybe you should try reading the actual FBI statistics, instead of reading some biased news article. There was a total of 8,583 murders performed by all firearms, and only 496 by hammers. How many people use a rifle to commit an armed robbery or assault?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/100#post_3544696
How many people use a rifle to commit an armed robbery or assault?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

From your link it looks like 12.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/100#post_3544696
You're starting to sound like an idiotic broken record. Guess you need to stay away from deranged handymen. How many of those deaths occurred when the victim was more than 30 feet away from the wielding hammer nutjob? Maybe you should try reading the actual FBI statistics, instead of reading some biased news article. There was a total of 8,583 murders performed by all firearms, and only 496 by hammers. How many people use a rifle to commit an armed robbery or assault?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
Biased, from CBS? Yeah, they have such a reputation for pushing the conservative line ROFLMAO!!!


I can't help it if you lack the intellectual capability to comprehend simple concepts. Or are you just suck a slave to the leftist agenda you refuse to admit you are wrong. They broke down the firearms that were used. Rifles were like 396 if memory serves.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Here's the bottom line.

It is estimated that there are more guns in the United States than people. So, that means that within our borders, there are over 330 MILLION weapons. You could stop ALL gun sales today, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

The time for policy change was decades, or even centuries ago.

Realistically, no matter which side of the argument you land on, we're up poo-poo creek without a paddle at this point.

 

[2quills]

Here's the bottom line.
It is estimated that there are more guns in the United States than people.  So, that means that within our borders, there are over 330 MILLION weapons.  You could stop ALL gun sales today, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. 
The time for policy change was decades, or even centuries ago. 
Realistically, no matter which side of the argument you land on, we're up poo-poo creek without a paddle at this point.
Agreed. Time would be better spent focusing on the strength of our economy vs wasting time with more gun regulation. If we had more people working, more people earning better income then some of the poverty will drop off and with it some of crime. Crimes are usually committed by desperate people doing desperate things. So if we had less desperate people then we'd have less crime. I think Aggie, would agree since he's already made the same argument here recently.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/100#post_3544698
Biased, from CBS? Yeah, they have such a reputation for pushing the conservative line ROFLMAO!!!


I can't help it if you lack the intellectual capability to comprehend simple concepts. Or are you just suck a slave to the leftist agenda you refuse to admit you are wrong. They broke down the firearms that were used. Rifles were like 396 if memory serves.
And you're stuck with this right-wing mentality that "guns are good" regardless of the fact that their prime reason for being invented was to kill or maim the target it is aimed at. Firearms were used to murder someone 20 times more than hammers. Breaking down which one was used more often is irrelevant. If some right-wing nutjob is the person who wrote the article, it doesn't matter which network or media outlet they work for.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/100#post_3544750
Agreed. Time would be better spent focusing on the strength of our economy vs wasting time with more gun regulation. If we had more people working, more people earning better income then some of the poverty will drop off and with it some of crime. Crimes are usually committed by desperate people doing desperate things. So if we had less desperate people then we'd have less crime. I think Aggie, would agree since he's already made the same argument here recently.
Yes, I would completely agree with that statement. But when it comes to these senseless mass shootings, it has very little to do with their economic status, and more to do with their mental instability. How you "regulate" it so that these types of individuals have a harder time acquiring ANY type of firearm is the question of the day.

 

[2quills]

Yes, I would completely agree with that statement.  But when it comes to these senseless mass shootings, it has very little to do with their economic status, and more to do with their mental instability.  How you "regulate" it so that these types of individuals have a harder time acquiring ANY type of firearm is the question of the day.
Well judging by your reaction to my questions about the stability of your psyche there's probably not much we can do to prevent all of those from happening. Like you said in this case there could be all of the signs in the world that someone may be about to flip out but if the people closest to those individuals fail to act then pardon my language but sh-t is going to happen.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/100#post_3544751
And you're stuck with this right-wing mentality that "guns are good" regardless of the fact that their prime reason for being invented was to kill or maim the target it is aimed at. Firearms were used to murder someone 20 times more than hammers. Breaking down which one was used more often is irrelevant. If some right-wing nutjob is the person who wrote the article, it doesn't matter which network or media outlet they work for.

You show your absurdity in your own posts. You can't make a reasonable case so you accuse CBS of all sources of publishing right wing reports ROFLMAO!!! The breakdown comes from the FBI crime report.... Sol if something was designed to kill and it kills 400 people in a year we get our liberal panties in a wad the little green apples we need to pass can't make it though but if 20,000 people are killed by a product that wasn't specifically designed to kill that's OK. Yeah, whatever.