Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/2/2013 8:36:23 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
quote:

The irony is 30 years ago we were fighting over handgun registration, the high powered/high fire rate 'assault weapons' really didnt' exist


Wait, wot? 1983?



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/2/2013 8:38:40 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

quote:

If we didn't allow people to own weapons that can pump out hundreds of rounds a minute with large capacity magazines



Actually, we don't. The AR-15 can only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. It is a semi-automatic rifle. That means the trigger must be pulled each and every time that a bullet is fired.

Fully automatic weapons are illegal for the vast majority of citizens.

Semi automatics can fire in that range as well, you can pull the trigger on a semi automatic like an AR15 at 2/second pretty easily, which is 120 rounds/minute or more. Put it this way, take your trigger finger and see how fast you can make the motion of squeezing off a round, and you will see how fast it can shoot.

You don't do a lot of shooting do you. Shooting that fast you can't hit the broad side of a barn.
First you assume far too much reloading time for a shotgun now you assume no reloading time for an AR



That is the point of rapid fire, you don't need to take precise aim. No, if I was shooting a target at 100 yards or 200 yards you couldn't do that..but think about the guy in Colorado, he wasn't targeting people, he just keep shooting, you don't need to be particularly accurate if you are shooting people 10 feet away. As far as reloading goes, the magazine in an AR15 can be replaced pretty quickly; and if you have a high capacity magazine, you don't have to replace it all that often either. The ones Lanza had were 30 shots, and he pumped out 156 rounds in less then 10 minutes (I have heard 5-7 minutes). You probably can't get off 120 in a minute if you had to change the magazine multiple times, but with training you can change a magazine fast, it is one of the selling points for them.A friend of mine, who is a gun owner (he wouldn't bother with an AR15, considers fodder for guys who never got out of puberty), said the real answer is limiting the firing rate on the weapons, and also by law making it difficult to reload them fast. If the gun lanza had didn't have a large capacity magazine and it took let's say 30 seconds or a minute to switch it, it is likely he would have only gotten very few victims and someone could have stopped him. There is a reason he never used the handguns in the attack, he didn't have to, one weapon allowed him to kill 26 people in somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes.

I can only imagine what is next with the NRA, getting the bans of fully automatic weapons removed? My point is for legitimate uses of guns, what is out there quite frankly is overkill, you don't need a 30 round magazine to go hunting (though personally why someone would use an AR15 I don't know, it isn't particularly accurate from what hunting friends of mine say), and a lot of it is just personal ego IMO. There has to be a balance between rights and the rights of the rest of society to be safe, and no right in the constitution is absolute, never was, never will be.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/2/2013 8:52:25 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

There has to be a balance between rights and the rights of the rest of society to be safe.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Nobody with the slightest interest in protecting society would have created these shooting galleries we euphemistically call "gun-free zones" in the first place. I could attribute it to some fatally idiotic belief that law-breakers won't break the law, but I don't think y'all are really that stupid. It's just that you're more interested in institutionalizing your gun phobia than you are in people's safety.

K.





< Message edited by Kirata -- 4/2/2013 9:44:40 PM >

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/2/2013 8:56:49 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

quote:

If we didn't allow people to own weapons that can pump out hundreds of rounds a minute with large capacity magazines



Actually, we don't. The AR-15 can only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. It is a semi-automatic rifle. That means the trigger must be pulled each and every time that a bullet is fired.

Fully automatic weapons are illegal for the vast majority of citizens.

Semi automatics can fire in that range as well, you can pull the trigger on a semi automatic like an AR15 at 2/second pretty easily, which is 120 rounds/minute or more. Put it this way, take your trigger finger and see how fast you can make the motion of squeezing off a round, and you will see how fast it can shoot.

You don't do a lot of shooting do you. Shooting that fast you can't hit the broad side of a barn.
First you assume far too much reloading time for a shotgun now you assume no reloading time for an AR



That is the point of rapid fire, you don't need to take precise aim. No, if I was shooting a target at 100 yards or 200 yards you couldn't do that..but think about the guy in Colorado, he wasn't targeting people, he just keep shooting, you don't need to be particularly accurate if you are shooting people 10 feet away. As far as reloading goes, the magazine in an AR15 can be replaced pretty quickly; and if you have a high capacity magazine, you don't have to replace it all that often either. The ones Lanza had were 30 shots, and he pumped out 156 rounds in less then 10 minutes (I have heard 5-7 minutes). You probably can't get off 120 in a minute if you had to change the magazine multiple times, but with training you can change a magazine fast, it is one of the selling points for them.A friend of mine, who is a gun owner (he wouldn't bother with an AR15, considers fodder for guys who never got out of puberty), said the real answer is limiting the firing rate on the weapons, and also by law making it difficult to reload them fast. If the gun lanza had didn't have a large capacity magazine and it took let's say 30 seconds or a minute to switch it, it is likely he would have only gotten very few victims and someone could have stopped him. There is a reason he never used the handguns in the attack, he didn't have to, one weapon allowed him to kill 26 people in somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes.

I can only imagine what is next with the NRA, getting the bans of fully automatic weapons removed? My point is for legitimate uses of guns, what is out there quite frankly is overkill, you don't need a 30 round magazine to go hunting (though personally why someone would use an AR15 I don't know, it isn't particularly accurate from what hunting friends of mine say), and a lot of it is just personal ego IMO. There has to be a balance between rights and the rights of the rest of society to be safe, and no right in the constitution is absolute, never was, never will be.

The shotgun could have killed as many in the same time. Even the double barrel can be reloaded in well under a minute. The AR, which I have no interest in owning is a good home defense weapon for people who can't handle a shotgun, Biden to the contrary a shotgun has somwthing on the order of five times the recoil of an AR.
As several people have pointed out when a pack of 20 cyotyes or wolves are surrounding you 30 rounds ins't that many.
Holmess AR jamed he did most of the damage with a 12 ga.
I have been shooting for 54 years so your not going to tell me anything I don't already know about shooting.
Even in close shooting that fast is just a waste of ammo sure you will get the rounds off but you will often get multiple shots into the same target and when you miss once you miss 2-3 times.
Do not forget that with 00buck you fire 0 .32 pellets every time you pull the trigger. lanza hit 6 rooms with the shotgun you fire 4 reload while walking to the next room repeat till you reach the 6th room.
You have now fired 216 32caliber rounds and your gun has never had less than 2 rounds (18 32 caliber pelletts ) in it
Simular body count more .32s than the AR sent .223s and unlike the AR NEVER empty

< Message edited by BamaD -- 4/2/2013 9:03:40 PM >

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/2/2013 8:58:40 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I can only imagine what is next with the NRA, getting the bans of fully automatic weapons removed? My point is for legitimate uses of guns, what is out there quite frankly is overkill, you don't need a 30 round magazine to go hunting (though personally why someone would use an AR15 I don't know, it isn't particularly accurate from what hunting friends of mine say), and a lot of it is just personal ego IMO. There has to be a balance between rights and the rights of the rest of society to be safe, and no right in the constitution is absolute, never was, never will be.


Because I don't want you to take rifles means I want to unleash machine guns, and gun grabbers say gun owners are paranoid.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 4/2/2013 8:59:23 PM >

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/2/2013 9:08:22 PM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Tracking large-scale ammunition purchases

Better mental health screenings for weapons purchases.

Banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

Letting the ATF do its job without meddling from gun manufacturers and the NRA.

Attaching civil liability to ultra-hazardous weapons.

BTW: I'm not anti-gun, I'm just pro-public safety.

Here's the problem with some of this. Remember, these were not Adam Lanza's weapons or ammunition purposes. Adam Lanza would have had the same opportunity to purchase them. He had no criminal record and there was no report of him ever being on any hold for being considered a danger to himself or others.

Civil liability after the fact? OK. What would you get? Nancy Lanza is dead. Would you like to sue her estate? Who do you want to go after? The brother who didn't live at home?

The ATF had no bearing on the Lanza case, so you lost Me on that one.



_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/2/2013 9:26:54 PM   
FrostedFlake


Posts: 3084
Joined: 3/4/2009
From: Centralia, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

OP
Adam Lanza killed 26 people within five minutes of storming into Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself.


Suppose I went to Safeway and bought a 20# canister of propane. Then instead of taking it home, I took it to the front door, rolled it in and shot it. And THEN went home.

Would it, whether the gas gets lit or not, make any difference whether or not any of the supposedly magical 'blame the gun' laws being pleaded for pass the legislature much less the court? Is it not instead actually genuinely a fact that if a man wants to fuck things up he can always find a way?

Let's think briefly about the day a guy like me could have with an entire rail car full of LPG.

Just an example. No gun involved.

_____________________________

Frosted Flake
simul justus et peccator
Einen Liebhaber, und halten Sie die Schraube

"... evil (and hilarious) !!" Hlen5

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/2/2013 10:52:27 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
One of the effects of prohibition is often escalation.

And it is only a matter of time until a combination of factors leads to mass killings that don't rely on guns.
At which point a lot of time that could have been spent focusing on mass killers instead of on their choice in equipment, will have been wasted. And those with a vested interest in hysteria over solutions, will start beating the drum to outlaw propane, or some such useless band-aid.


quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

quote:

OP
Adam Lanza killed 26 people within five minutes of storming into Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself.


Suppose I went to Safeway and bought a 20# canister of propane. Then instead of taking it home, I took it to the front door, rolled it in and shot it. And THEN went home.

Would it, whether the gas gets lit or not, make any difference whether or not any of the supposedly magical 'blame the gun' laws being pleaded for pass the legislature much less the court? Is it not instead actually genuinely a fact that if a man wants to fuck things up he can always find a way?

Let's think briefly about the day a guy like me could have with an entire rail car full of LPG.

Just an example. No gun involved.



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to FrostedFlake)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/2/2013 11:30:54 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

That is the point of rapid fire, you don't need to take precise aim. No, if I was shooting a target at 100 yards or 200 yards you couldn't do that..but think about the guy in Colorado, he wasn't targeting people, he just keep shooting, you don't need to be particularly accurate if you are shooting people 10 feet away


Too many movies.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/3/2013 12:21:18 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

There has to be a balance between rights and the rights of the rest of society to be safe.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Nobody with the slightest interest in protecting society would have created these shooting galleries we euphemistically call "gun-free zones" in the first place. I could attribute it to some fatally idiotic belief that law-breakers won't break the law, but I don't think y'all are really that stupid. It's just that you're more interested in institutionalizing your gun phobia than you are in people's safety.

K.





You mean Hoplophobia

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/3/2013 12:22:20 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Tracking large-scale ammunition purchases

Better mental health screenings for weapons purchases.

Banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

Letting the ATF do its job without meddling from gun manufacturers and the NRA.

Attaching civil liability to ultra-hazardous weapons.

BTW: I'm not anti-gun, I'm just pro-public safety.

Here's the problem with some of this. Remember, these were not Adam Lanza's weapons or ammunition purposes. Adam Lanza would have had the same opportunity to purchase them. He had no criminal record and there was no report of him ever being on any hold for being considered a danger to himself or others.

Civil liability after the fact? OK. What would you get? Nancy Lanza is dead. Would you like to sue her estate? Who do you want to go after? The brother who didn't live at home?

The ATF had no bearing on the Lanza case, so you lost Me on that one.



You can sue an person estate.

(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/3/2013 12:25:18 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
It's like pouring water on a rock.
Good Evening, cloudboy. I hope you don't mind, but I wanted to have a word with you as the OP.

Nobody is going to deny that what happened at Sandy Hook was a horrible thing. People seem to miss the point that tougher gun laws wouldn't have changed it.

I do know that fear mongering isn't the solution. Fear is not logical. It's not practical. It makes for a crap foundation when creating policy and it sure as heck doesn't do well when used as the basis for writing laws.

I've been called "pro gun" quite a few times in the last couple of years. I suppose that is accurate because I'm pro hunting and I'm pro self defense. As you know, deep at heart, I'm just a small town chick. I also have the frame of mind that if you want to complain about a problem, you'd better have a solution.

Rather than play upon fear, I'd rather hear your solution.




I believe that is what some are attempting to do. I grant that this is sort of slippery slop but I think all opitions should be on the table and tried. Some may not popular with some but to try something and it fails is far better then to do nothing at all and just what for the next incident to happen is wrong.

Sounds like you don't understand that once you ban guns, put the manufacturers out of business and see that it doesn't work it is too late to go back.


BamaD, antis don't care what the fallout is as long as they get their way. A disarmed America is for the best to them no matter what the fallout is. Anything that happens afterward is perfectly okay so long as it's not a revolution where they get put the wall as they say. Mass rape and murder is perfectly acceptable to them.


You are very judgemental, biased, racist, .anthropophobia, centophobia...and alot more all negative.

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 4/3/2013 12:29:03 AM >

(in reply to TricklessMagic)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/3/2013 12:31:22 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

quote:

OP
Adam Lanza killed 26 people within five minutes of storming into Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself.


Suppose I went to Safeway and bought a 20# canister of propane. Then instead of taking it home, I took it to the front door, rolled it in and shot it. And THEN went home.

Would it, whether the gas gets lit or not, make any difference whether or not any of the supposedly magical 'blame the gun' laws being pleaded for pass the legislature much less the court? Is it not instead actually genuinely a fact that if a man wants to fuck things up he can always find a way?

Let's think briefly about the day a guy like me could have with an entire rail car full of LPG.

Just an example. No gun involved.


Interesting Mythbuster actually tried doing it but propane did not go off.

(in reply to FrostedFlake)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/3/2013 1:48:03 AM   
FrostedFlake


Posts: 3084
Joined: 3/4/2009
From: Centralia, Washington
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

quote:

OP
Adam Lanza killed 26 people within five minutes of storming into Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself.


Suppose I went to Safeway and bought a 20# canister of propane. Then instead of taking it home, I took it to the front door, rolled it in and shot it. And THEN went home.

Would it, whether the gas gets lit or not, make any difference whether or not any of the supposedly magical 'blame the gun' laws being pleaded for pass the legislature much less the court? Is it not instead actually genuinely a fact that if a man wants to fuck things up he can always find a way?

Let's think briefly about the day a guy like me could have with an entire rail car full of LPG.

Just an example. No gun involved.


Interesting Mythbuster actually tried doing it but propane did not go off.

Yeah. And you don't think someone can know how to light propane. Let's think : How do I plan to punch a hole in a railroad car?

Thermite?

_____________________________

Frosted Flake
simul justus et peccator
Einen Liebhaber, und halten Sie die Schraube

"... evil (and hilarious) !!" Hlen5

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/3/2013 7:31:26 AM   
TricklessMagic


Posts: 248
Joined: 9/14/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
It's like pouring water on a rock.
Good Evening, cloudboy. I hope you don't mind, but I wanted to have a word with you as the OP.

Nobody is going to deny that what happened at Sandy Hook was a horrible thing. People seem to miss the point that tougher gun laws wouldn't have changed it.

I do know that fear mongering isn't the solution. Fear is not logical. It's not practical. It makes for a crap foundation when creating policy and it sure as heck doesn't do well when used as the basis for writing laws.

I've been called "pro gun" quite a few times in the last couple of years. I suppose that is accurate because I'm pro hunting and I'm pro self defense. As you know, deep at heart, I'm just a small town chick. I also have the frame of mind that if you want to complain about a problem, you'd better have a solution.

Rather than play upon fear, I'd rather hear your solution.




I believe that is what some are attempting to do. I grant that this is sort of slippery slop but I think all opitions should be on the table and tried. Some may not popular with some but to try something and it fails is far better then to do nothing at all and just what for the next incident to happen is wrong.

Sounds like you don't understand that once you ban guns, put the manufacturers out of business and see that it doesn't work it is too late to go back.


BamaD, antis don't care what the fallout is as long as they get their way. A disarmed America is for the best to them no matter what the fallout is. Anything that happens afterward is perfectly okay so long as it's not a revolution where they get put the wall as they say. Mass rape and murder is perfectly acceptable to them.


You are very judgemental, biased, racist, .anthropophobia, centophobia...and alot more all negative.


Coming from you I know that's a compliment lol. Oh but please point out how I'm racist, I'd like to know seriously. I mean I know for liberals throwing out the word racists without any basis is supposed to mean victory. When you can't win, call the other party a racists; isn't that the liberal motto.

Biased, huh, oh you mean I look at history, facts, reality, California, New York City, Chicago, Massachusetts, Democrats, The Sullivan Act of 1911, the Lubby's Massacre, etc. etc. etc.. Yeah I guess reality makes me "biased" against liberalism and disarmament.

Look I'll make this clear so no one has any doubts. I see this movement of disarmament as a disease much like cancer. Now when dealing with cancer do you let it spread or do you begin immediate medical evaluation and possible treatment where called for by a doctor. So I see anyone who preaches disarmament as a disease. Simple as that. As we see the cancer spread to Colorado and Connecticut as it grows stronger in New York, the push back must be as harsh as possible. Sides must become polarized and only the minimum requirements of kind chatter observed.

So you keep peddling those phobias as if they mean a single thing or are in anyway accurate, it won't change a damn thing.

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/3/2013 8:19:09 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
It's like pouring water on a rock.
Good Evening, cloudboy. I hope you don't mind, but I wanted to have a word with you as the OP.

Nobody is going to deny that what happened at Sandy Hook was a horrible thing. People seem to miss the point that tougher gun laws wouldn't have changed it.

I do know that fear mongering isn't the solution. Fear is not logical. It's not practical. It makes for a crap foundation when creating policy and it sure as heck doesn't do well when used as the basis for writing laws.

I've been called "pro gun" quite a few times in the last couple of years. I suppose that is accurate because I'm pro hunting and I'm pro self defense. As you know, deep at heart, I'm just a small town chick. I also have the frame of mind that if you want to complain about a problem, you'd better have a solution.

Rather than play upon fear, I'd rather hear your solution.




I believe that is what some are attempting to do. I grant that this is sort of slippery slop but I think all opitions should be on the table and tried. Some may not popular with some but to try something and it fails is far better then to do nothing at all and just what for the next incident to happen is wrong.

Sounds like you don't understand that once you ban guns, put the manufacturers out of business and see that it doesn't work it is too late to go back.


BamaD, antis don't care what the fallout is as long as they get their way. A disarmed America is for the best to them no matter what the fallout is. Anything that happens afterward is perfectly okay so long as it's not a revolution where they get put the wall as they say. Mass rape and murder is perfectly acceptable to them.


You are very judgemental, biased, racist, .anthropophobia, centophobia...and alot more all negative.


Coming from you I know that's a compliment lol. Oh but please point out how I'm racist, I'd like to know seriously. I mean I know for liberals throwing out the word racists without any basis is supposed to mean victory. When you can't win, call the other party a racists; isn't that the liberal motto.

Biased, huh, oh you mean I look at history, facts, reality, California, New York City, Chicago, Massachusetts, Democrats, The Sullivan Act of 1911, the Lubby's Massacre, etc. etc. etc.. Yeah I guess reality makes me "biased" against liberalism and disarmament.

Look I'll make this clear so no one has any doubts. I see this movement of disarmament as a disease much like cancer. Now when dealing with cancer do you let it spread or do you begin immediate medical evaluation and possible treatment where called for by a doctor. So I see anyone who preaches disarmament as a disease. Simple as that. As we see the cancer spread to Colorado and Connecticut as it grows stronger in New York, the push back must be as harsh as possible. Sides must become polarized and only the minimum requirements of kind chatter observed.

So you keep peddling those phobias as if they mean a single thing or are in anyway accurate, it won't change a damn thing.


You answered your own question. And shown more proof I am right.

(in reply to TricklessMagic)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/3/2013 8:23:57 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

BamaD, antis don't care what the fallout is as long as they get their way. A disarmed America is for the best to them no matter what the fallout is. Anything that happens afterward is perfectly okay so long as it's not a revolution where they get put the wall as they say. Mass rape and murder is perfectly acceptable to them.


I know but they need to be challeged so thier ravings don't pass for wisdom.

Considering, that you couldnt even get the number of mass killing victims right, or the number of official bundy murders correct, and the many other times you have parsed bullshit as fact in your posts, and backpedal rapidly .........Im laughing at the irony.


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/3/2013 8:54:37 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

There has to be a balance between rights and the rights of the rest of society to be safe.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Nobody with the slightest interest in protecting society would have created these shooting galleries we euphemistically call "gun-free zones" in the first place. I could attribute it to some fatally idiotic belief that law-breakers won't break the law, but I don't think y'all are really that stupid. It's just that you're more interested in institutionalizing your gun phobia than you are in people's safety.

K.






Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended.

Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms?

Thirty-six of the killers committed suicide at or near the crime scene. These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.
Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer.
True security in our schools and other designated gun-free places may require more. Forbidding firearms alone clearly won't keep violence away—not least because of how easily bad guys can get their hands on guns. Nearly 80 percent of the mass shooters we documented obtained their weapons legally.

Indeed, America is anything but gun free. We now have more than 300 million firearms in private hands. In the last four years, nearly 100 state laws have loosened restrictions on them. To varying degrees, every state except Illinois now allows guns to be carried in public.

All of which raises an obvious question: If more guns in more places is a solution to the bloodshed, then why did we just witness the worst year for mass shootings in recent history?

*Guns were in fact legal at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, contrary to a false report from Fox News. Wisconsin state law allows firearms to be carried in houses of worship unless explicitly barred on the premises; Amardeep Kaleka, whose father founded the temple and was killed during the attack, confirmed to me that there was no such ban in place then.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/gun-free-zones-mass-shootings


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/3/2013 8:59:49 AM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
You can sue an person estate.
I know you can. I'm asking what good it would do?



_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza - 4/3/2013 9:06:19 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
You can sue an person estate.
I know you can. I'm asking what good it would do?



People sue for all kinds of reasons...very successfully as to what good it does, is anybody guess.

(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: It's Just so Scary -- Adam Lanza Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125