The largest school killing in US history happened in 1927.......guy bombed an elementary school killing 38 kids. There was the subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo. Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City......if someone wants to kill a large amount of people they will figure out a way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Have you ever had a gun pointed at you?
There are two types of people in this world, Fight or Flight, and 99.9 % are flight type people.
If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight, so he will just change it out and keep going. An armed person is more likely to make a stand and end the situation, but since there are fewer legally armed citizens in the country than unarmed, you will end up with more casualties, and less people putting an end to the threat. Most people who are adept with firearms are not going to let a magazine change stop them from their intent.

BTW I know what it is like to have a gun stuck in my face as a victim of an Armed Robbery when I was 16, it is not a very pleasant feeling, and believe me if my cousin had a gun behind the counter I would have fought back...

TDF, do you believe these things you type, or are you contrarian just for the sake of it?

You're absolutely right. We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop 100% of vilent crime. So let's shut down prisons, abandon the police force, and leave our doors open at night.

Wee can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all car accidents. So let's get rid of laws that prohibit drunk driving, and let 4 year-olds drive on the highway.

We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all fires, right? So let's get rid of the fire department, and abolish laws that pertain to fire safety.

This is your logic.

We pass laws that increase saefty without trampling on our freedoms. we can't stop everything. Maybe we can lower the body count the next time some kook snaps and reaches for the weapons he's legally allowed to buy at that time.

TDF, answer one question? If a kook snaps at your kids' school, you see no difference in the expected body count, whether the kook has a rock, a knife, a handgun, or a rifle with a high-capacity magazine? Those situations are all identical?

I'm not anti-gun, I am aware of what happens in cities where guns are banned. All I'm saying is, and this is irrefutable, it's harder for the averake kook to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is with a rifle.

You're talking about typical street crime. I'm talking about the much rarer situation where someone snaps and wants to kill as many people as possible. I'm not talking robbery, I'm talking about random mass murder. In that scenario, I'm pretty sure we are all better off if that guy has a handgun than a rifle with a high-capacity magazine.

To answer your question, I am a combat vet. And every time I was in for-real combat, I would have been much happier if the bad guys had handguns instead of automatic weapons.

You people are denying that guns are more dangerous than my bare hands, and denying that machine guns are more lethal than handguns? I don't get that argument.

"If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight,"

Wrong. Tell that to the principal and the psychologist of Sandy Hook school who died rushing the shooter while he was still shooting. If that kook had to stop to re-load at that time, there is a getter chance they could have overpowered him just long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

I would never say that banning high capacity magazines will end crime. However, I can't believe some people are denying that these weapons make it easier to kill large numbers of people. why do you think the Marines are issued rifles? To twirl around at parades? For the exercise we get carrying them around?

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.

So what body count is the right number? Are we OK with ten dead before we pass a law? Is the magic number twenty? Every one of those 20, or 10, or 5, is a one to the parents that lose a child. To each of those parents one is the limit.

If we can't pass a law to keep all kooks off the streets and out of society, what law will stop them from killing the all important number? Kooks drive cars and start fires too. How many deaths per fire or car accident do we allow them before we pass a law to stop them?

The major difference, among many, between the right to bear arms and driving or having access to flammables is the specific prohibition in the Constitution against government denying citizens the ownership of guns. While neither owning cars or matches are also not prohibited by the Constitution, the specific listing of guns, for specific all-important reasons, also prohibits the States from denying the right to bear arms.

The Constitution reserves the legislation of criminal or civil law to the States, and to the Federal Government only those laws legislated under the umbrella of its enumerated powers.

You don't want to trample the Constitution, but you might be a little more hesitant about the constant nibbling at it. Gun "control" laws, as limited as they might constitutionally be, should be reserved to the States. Do you notice how "gun control" has been made a Federal issue?

I don't think that anyone denies that "assault-type" or automatic weapons allow you to kill mass numbers more quickly than non-automatic hand guns. If we can get the conversation beyond that point it might be meaningful. If that IS the point the discussion is not only creepy, but rather indeterminate.

There was a law on the books that said a person convicted of a felony could not own firearms.....did that law stop the guy in NY from killing those firefighters? He served 17 years for manslaughter and still got his hands on them. So now we pass a feel good law prohibiting high capacity magazines.......if someone wants one they will still get one no matter if its legal or not.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:drevil:Don Steese column: Freedom and gun control Sports The Daily Item, Sunbury, PA
I agree pretty much totally with this guy, and this subject is just a good one to get the media off Libya.

"So what body count is the right number? "

I don't know, and that's exactly why we need the conversation.

Detbuch, we can save lives by banning cars. I would not support that law, because cars provide an incalculable amount of freedom to 95% of Americans. I just don't see that high capacity magazines are as essential to our way of life. If banning them saves one little kid, personally I'd be OK with banning them. I don't think that banning high capacity magazines amounts to a trampling of the constitutional right to bear arms. You could still buy the weapon, just with lower capacity magazines. That doesn't seem all that totalitarian to me.

TDF, all you're doing is pointing out that public safety laws are not 100% foolproof. In equally shocking news, scientists announced today that water is wet.

Using your logic, why not eliminate the police and all criminal laws? After all, those laws don't eliminate crime, right? What possible difference is there between what you said, and what I just said? You're saying that if a public safety law isn't 100% fool-proof, it's therefore useless. That's all you saying, you can say it as many times as you want, it's still idiotic.

If something is illegal, some folks will get their hands on them. But not everyone has the means to acquire illegal weapons. Nor is every crime is committed with the planning and premidation required to obtain black-market illegal weapons. Some crimes (not all, but some) are more spur-of-the-moment, and in those cases, the kook uses what's at his fingertips. In thaty scenario, the less lethal the wepon at his disposal, the lower the expected body count, all other things being equal.

I notice you chose not to answer my question about what weapon you'd prefer a would-be mass murderer to have if he went to your kids' school.

This killer in Newtown had major mental issues. It's highly unlikely he'd be able to get his hands on illegal weapons. The only person he talked to was his mother.

TDF, there isn't a single public safety law on the books that can't be circumvented. Not one. Using your 'logic', I guess we should eliminate all those laws. Incredible.

A few selected quotes from many
 

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson

An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.
Thomas Jefferson

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.
Thomas Jefferson

A Feather Pillow.......Happy.


Have a happy New Year.......l forgot about my resolution last year......not to get into discussions with you......My blood pressure just goes through the roof......

You use your logic and l'll use mine and let's not try and understand each others....OK
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're still not understanding a key point in this discussion. I know you think that citizens defending themselves against the U.S. military is a silly idea. Maybe so. 250 million well-armed citizens would be formidable if they had the courage and purpose to fight. And included in that number would, I think, be included a good portion of that military. Would you, as a soldier, if the government proclaimed martial law with the aim of collecting all weapons from the citizens and imposing an open, despotic, anti-constitutional government, the Constitution you swore to protect and defend--would you serve that government or rebel against it. But that is not the immediate point of this discussion.

The point is that the Federal Government should not be banning the guns from the hands of the citizens. Whatever, if any, banning is done should be at the State level where the citizens have more direct say whether they CHOOSE to ban high capacity magazines, etc.

I apologize for not being able to really commit to discussion and hate having to do these drive-by posts...
It's easy to support your argument with "Ifs", but the fact of the matter is that your scenario just isn't accurate. The shooter had multiple weapons on him (has there been clarity yet on exactly which?). Let's go with the last report I remember and say he had a rifle and two pistols on him. Pistols provide a level of protection for exactly the situation you bring up. When the piece of trash had to stop and reload, his pistol could be used as protection until he was able to do so.

There is little benefit to the mentality of "long enough for the cavalry to arrive." As I have stated before, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

(quick side story)I think it was General Pershing that said "The deadliest weapon in battle is a Marine and his rifle." I type this quote because, well for one I like it and for two, it demonstrates that a rifle is useless without a Marine behind it, just as a gun does not go bang without someone pulling the trigger. (end side story)

The Marines are issued rifles because that is the tool best suited for the job - shooting at distance.

For situations like close-quarters clearing of building, the weapon of choice is a severely modified rifle, known as a short-barreled rifle. A short-barreled rifle is illegal for a typical citizen to own without submitting an application to the ATF, paying a $200 tax and fulfilling all other requirements of the National Firearms Act.

While I'm not nearly smart enough or pretentious enough to be a lawyer it is my understanding that in law, it is taught that there is a requirement to look at "intent" when there is not 100% clarity.

Yes, the Constitution states that I have a Right to bear arms. If we interpret that literally, that could mean the government would be within the Constitution to limit people to black powder rifles and no more. However, there is a need to look at context and intent.

The Revolutionaries had just rebelled against an oppressive regime. The British were exploitative of the Colonists, over-taxed them without representation, under-supported them and had an overall disregard for a colony that was increasing the riches of the Crown (sounds familiar to being a small business owner today), not to mention the constant involuntary quartering of British troops. Publications were mostly limited to those that were sponsored by the throne. People were sentenced to imprisonment or death by a Throne-appointed magistrate.

In order to fight the oppressive regime, the colonists needed to "take arms" and fight in the face of tyranny.

Now, let's look at our Bill of Rights. Trial by jury of peers, Freedom of Speech/Religion/Press, prohibition of peacetime quartering of troops, security against unreasonable searches and seizures, a well regulated Militia, right to keep and bear arms.

All of these items are to prevent the wrongs which were committed by the British. The Revolutionaries feared a central government with too much power(hence why their first attempt to create one failed) and tried to do whatever possible to keep that central government in check when drafting the Constitution.

With the above long-winded preface in mind, the intent of the law becomes clear. The intent of the Second Amendment isn't "everyone gets to have a gun", it's that the citizens be allowed to own weapons to fight against another tyrannical government or any other regime that would get out of control. I have read speculation that the reason the right to bear arms immediately follows the First Amendment is because the Second Amendment provides a means of protection for the First Amendment.

I tend to be offended when people claim "well the Second Amendment doesn't state the type of gun", somewhat because it's the irrational response of many liberals I talk to, but mostly because it demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the principles for which this country was founded on. The claim would be no different than saying "the First Amendment states you have freedom of speech, but it doesn't state where you can speak freely," a ludicrous claim if it were ever to be made.

This has nothing to do with the debate here but I'm curious as to why you would state this?

When I was instructing in the USAF our armory had a wide variety of rifle caliber weapons with high cap mags for dog and pony shows etc.

I don't even think I can recall a malfunction due to a magazine unless the mag itself was somehow physically damaged.Just the opposite with .22LR,the high cap mags always jammed especially the mag for the .22LR conversion kit for the M16.

In any case one of the biggest things to be considered in any magazine malfunction is the condition and quality of the ammo itself.

Sorry about going off topic.

I may be speaking a bit out of turn, and should have mentioned circumstantial evidence - since living in the socialist commonwealth of Massachusetts, such world-ending destructive devices are not widely available here. The Aurora movie theater shooting is a recent example of a 100-rd drum magazine in .223 malfunctioning.

When I say "high-capacity" I'm talking magazines greater than 30 rounds. Frankly, a 30 round magazine is "standard capacity" for rifles. Politicians have re-defined "high capacity" to mean anything above 10 rounds, just as "assault weapon" is not an actual description of a firearm but a politically created term. Just as you experienced with the USAF, 30 rounds is a standard magazine size.

I apologize for the confusion by not clarifying that ahead of time. When I speak of high capacity, it's more in reference to 50 round magazines and drums. The issue arises due to politicians redefining terminology to fit their agendas. Since my experience is certainly limited to only a few opportunities shooting with 50-rd magazines, I'd definitely welcome experiences to confirm and deny what I've seen and heard.

Thankyou for the clarification.

And I would concur 100% that those large cap drum mags jam-up big time.Almost any high cap mags including the 40rd AK mags jam.30rd mags would appear to be the threshold for true functionality in a magazine from my experience.

Magazine capacity is irrelevent. Lee Harvey Oswald changed history with a bolt action Italian Army surplus rifle. We need to allow those who are LEGALLY allowed to, to arm themselves and deny those who are not. Every single thing that I can think of that is regulated in this country has a larger black market that legal one. Drugs, Guns? Maybe they all should be deregulated, when the dust clears, the problem would have taken care of itself through ODs , killings and general mayhem. Being facitious here, so keep yer panties on. We need to keep the criminal and the weapon separated. And to not deny the law abiding citizen means to his own protection. It is plain that the government cannot protect us always. Crazies and criminal are a problem that require some deep thinking..

Google the battle of Athens

I am not denying that Machine guns are more dangerous than handguns, but there in lies the problem. We are not talking about machine guns, machine guns are fully automatic, hold the trigger and fire as many rounds as you have. We are talking semi automatic look a likes, big difference.

Let me give you this scenario, we were duck hunting one time, I was using a pump shotgun, Remington 870, my buddy was using his Remington 100, semi automatic. When you are duck hunting you are limited to 3 shells in the gun. A group of ducks came in and my buddy spotted them before me, yet I got up and got three shots off at ducks moving very fast and killed 2, before my buddy got off 2 shots not hitting one. He was pissed that a pump shotgun got 3 shots off faster than his semi auto shot gun.


Where did you hear that the unarmed principal "rushed " the shooter, I am thinking she rushed to the commotion, but we will never ever know the true story about that one. There is no denying the average person will try to hide or flee and very few if any will try to do anything. Now lets say she did rush the guy, don't you think if she had been armed we would not be burying all of those little kids ?

The larger problem is how we treat the mentally ill in this country. How we treat each other. How parents raise their kids. The lack of respect most kids have for each other, adults, and life in general...

Here you are dead wrong, because it was implied and meant to be that the people were armed as equally as any threat both foreign and domestic. If they only had pitch forks going up against musket we would all be kissing Elizabeths ass today, and have #^&#^&#^&#^&ty teeth to boot...

Exactly as the constitution intended, excellent find...

Kind of like the movie Walking Tall/...

First, the one adult who was wounded and survived, said that the principal and psychologist were killed as they ran right at the shooter.

Second, you cannot say I am dead wrong because of your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I based my opinion on what the document actually says. You cannot possibly know what was "meant to be", we have been debating that for 200 years.

AGREE 100%. Any impact of gun control is nothing compared to the impact of trying to find ways to teach our kids to have some empathy for their fellow man. You are absolutely, 100% dead-on, you nailed the larger problem correctly. Yet all I'm hearing from Washington is gun control.

Everyone watch this video and then give an honest answer to whether or not the politicians are wasting their time going after "assault weapons"


Assault Rifle vs. Sporting Rifle - YouTube

The thing that I argue with that video is that we all know an Ar-15 is not really a hunting riffle. What deer hunter needs more than 10 rounds to down a deer? I don't hunt, but I would think a skilled hunter would only need to have 3 bullets.

The true love for the AR-15 is its fun to shoot and people want one because other people have them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That being said.. I'm not for the banning of these weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More than one state had opinions prior to the introduction of the amendments to the Constitution, and here in Vermont we had and have the right to bear arms for our own defense
Early Gun Rights Legislation: http://www.madisonbrigade.com/images/1pix.gif Eight of the original states enacted their own bills of rights prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution. The following states included an arms-rights provision in their state constitutions:
VIRGINIA
(June 12, 1776)
13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
DELAWARE
(September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.
PENNSYLVANIA
(September 28, 1776)
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
MARYLAND
(November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.
NORTH CAROLINA
(December 18, 1776)
XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
VERMONT
(July 8, 1777)
XV. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State …
MASSACHUSETTS
(October 25, 1780)
XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
(June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
In addition to these legislative enactments of bills or declarations of rights, there were numerous other proclamations being promulgated at the time. For example:
INSTRUCTIONS OF TOWN MEETING, PRESTON, CONNECTICUT
(November 26, 1787)
It is our ardent wish that an efficient government may be established over these states so constructed that the people may retain all liberties, privileges, and immunities usual and necessary for citizens of a free country and yet sufficient provision made for carrying into execution all the powers vested in government. We are willing to give up such share of our rights as to enable government to support, defend, preserve the rest. It is difficult to draw the line. All will agree that the people should retain so much power that if ever venality and corruption should prevail in our public councils and government should be perverted and not answer the end of the institution, viz., the well being of society and the good of the whole, in that case the people may resume their rights and put an end to the wantonness of power. In whatever government the people neglect to retain so much power in their hands as to be a check to their rulers, depravity and the love of power is so prevalent in the humane mind, even of the best of men, that tyranny and cruelty will inevitably take place."
MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION
(December 12, 1787)


That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.
DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION
(February 6, 1788)
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION
(June 21, 1788)
Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
VIRGINIA CONVENTION
(June 27, 1788)
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear to arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
NEW YORK CONVENTION
(July 7,1788)
That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.


NEW YORK CONVENTION
(July 26,1788)
That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION
(May 29, 1790)
XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

New Englanders forget that deer, moose, bear and bird are not the only game in this country. I'll tell you one animal I'd want as many rounds available as possible for - wild boar.

Also, where in the Constitution are rights required to be justified by "need"? We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need. If I want to drive 24 hours, fish the Florida beaches for a day and then drive home, I'm not required to express why I should be able to do that because of a "need".

No one *needs* alcohol, tobacco or fast food - yet all three of those are individually responsible for killing more people every year than firearms. Where's the outrage there? How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard.

JimInCT says he'd support a ban on magazines over 30 rounds if it meant saving the life of one child, yet I'd bet he enjoys a beer or glass of wine with dinner, maybe even the celebratory cigar at a wedding, and everyone has experienced "crap I'm running late but hungry. I'll just stop by McDonalds."

Nebe, I don't mean to single you out and I know you said you do not support a ban, but your comment is one made frequently by the gun control crowd.

As I've argued repeatedly, people that use wording like "common sense reform," "reasonable changes" and other fluffy phrases that do not have an actual meaning to them, make those statements because they do not have the numbers on their side. You can add the "well why do you need that" argument to the fluffy list as well.

Not a single person that has called for more gun control can actually support what changes would take place with those controls in effect. We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns" and magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds. However, there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time.

All I'm saying is its a joke to me when I hear people say they need these guns for hunting. No you don't. People want these guns because they think they are cool and because other people have them. If I was a New England deer hunter and I saw someone hunting with an AR-15, I would laugh at them just as hard as the noobs I see with van stalls and zee bass reels who never wade past their ankles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People buy them for protection.
It's a case of not being out gunned.
Hunting shouldn't and doesn't have a place in this argument . That's not the reason gun ownership was put into the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm glad we agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need."

Come on, you can do better than that. You aren't likely to kill anyone going for a walk. If, however, you want to get you hands on something inherently dangerous (say dynamite for blasting, or anthrax for research), you absolutely have to show justifiable need. Most rational people are OK with those laws.

Are you saying you're an anarchist now?

"How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard. "

Correct. And we have all kinds of zoning laws you need to follow to put in a pool. You can't just do whatever you want.

Johnny, I'm not saying that sensible gun control is going to save millions and millions of lives. I said it would be likely to save a small number of lives. So pointing out that more people are killed in car accidents, isn't refuting my point, because I concede that. I would not want the government outlawing cars. Outlawing assault rifles with high-capacity magazines does not seem all that totalitarian to me. Almost everyone owns a car, and if we had to get rid of those cars, our lives would be turned upside down. I don't see the same intrusion with giving up high-capacity magazines. Our day-to-day lives don't depend on high-capacity magazines.

"We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns""

There were more than 900 exceptions, including the AR-15. In effect, there was no ban. It was so watered down, no one thought it would do anything.

"there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time"

That's because 99.99% of gun violence is one-on-one confrontations with a handgun. These random mass-murders are a totally different scenario, and as such, they need to be discussed seperately. JD, I'd bet every cent I have, against the spare change you have in your pocket, that the body count in Newtown would have been lower if that kid walked into that school with a handgun.

All other things being equal, you can kill more people with an AR-15 than you can with a handgun. I don't need data to convince me of that. I know it's true. Most of the cops I saw storming that school had rifles in their hands, not handguns. Why is that? JD, why is that?

I'm not saying we'll all live forever if we impose such a ban. I'm not even saying I support such a ban. I just think we need to have a serious conversation on the subject, one that is guided by common sense rather than radical ideology or outright jibberish.

I'll say again, any impact of gun legislation is going to be very minor. More good can be done by talking about re-instilling traditional family values, and by discussing the garbage that's on TV, in movies, and in video games.

I doubt that. I'd bet every penny I have that most people (not all) buy them for the thrill. If I really thought I was in a situation where I was in so much danger that I couldn't defend myself with a handgun, I'd probably look at making some changes in my lifestyle.

It's pretty rare you need such a weapon for protection, isn't it? Rare, but not non-existant. If I was a white store-owner in LA during the Rodney King riots, I'd rather have an AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine than a handgun. And the reason I'd want the AR-15, is the same exact reason why I say (and can't believe people here are denying this) that a kook on a rampage will kill more kids with that weapon than with a handgun.

This is the conversation that should take place. Is the rare need for such a weopon for civilian protection, worth the price of more dead little kids when these rampages happen in schools?

I don't know the answer. But we can't have the conversation if folks won't admit these weapons will increase the body count.

Key word there is " kook"
It's not about the weapon
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then please enlighten me. If the weapon plays no role in the outcome, why did all those cops (who have standard issue handguns) run into that school with rifles? How come when I was with the USMC, I never once told my gyus to leave their rifles back at base and just bring handguns?

The kook is the biggest factor, you are correct. But please, tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?

The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.

How is that wrong?

Happy New Year to me.

Had no previous interest in purchasing a Glock. Wouldn't have purchased it, if I didn't feel it was about to be outlawed.

There were 30 people buying guns with 8 people behind the counter.

Joining Old Colony Sportmans association on Sunday.

http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/a...218_172418.jpg

[QUOTE

The kook is the biggest factor, you are correct. But please, tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?

The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.

How is that wrong?[/QUOTE]

Think suicide bomber . Your right this kook chose an assault style rifle but your premise that less kids would have died if he didn't illegally access this weapon is hypothetical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device